Dear Tedros, What the HELL does "EQUITY" mean in relation to these contentious proposed IHR amendments and Treaty?
It's time for the WHO and local governments to DEFINE some of these words underpinning Agenda 2030 and the pandemic treaty/IHR amendments with the traditional meaning to avoid violating IHR Article 3.
Definitions.
We all complain to each other about the WHO’s spurious “evolving” definitions, but it’s actually a big deal in law about all the spurious definitions coming from the WHO… There appears to be some sort of bizarre over-reliance on undefined words and misdefined words that are causing international health regulatory violations and violation of national sovereignty by violating IHR Article 3 (4). You know that article right? The one that protects sovereignty of national legislators?
Soon, we will go into GREAT detail on the most important misdefined words and the legal usurpation of sovereignty caused by national reliance on the WHO to re-define traditional words already defined by our local legislation.
For now let’s discuss EQUITY! The WHO’s Favorite undefined word. It’s their “moral force".
Administrative and common law meets equity. Along the lines the laws all MERGED… Why?
The laws are merged to include REAL equity… (and to make it purposefully confusing)
Equity is the law of “fairness”!
No Tedros, your UNDEFINED buzz word (that your whole “one health” agenda is based upon): “equity”, is NOT a “shot in every arm” when Bill Gates says!
INTEREST OF JUSTICE IS RECLAIMING WORDS AND DEFINITIONS BACK FROM THE GLOBALISTS AND GIVING THEM BACK TO THE LEGISLATORS:
RECLAIMED WORD OF THE DAY IS “EQUITY”!
TA-DA! And just like that, a single word takes on its previous traditional meaning…
MAXIMS OF EQUITY:
Short pithy statements used to denote the general principles that are supposed to run through equity. Although subject to exceptions, they are commonly used to justify particular decisions and express some of the basic principles that have guided the development of equity law (equity law is the law of basic fairness and reciprocity).
The main maxims are as follows:
• equity acts * in personam;
• equity acts on the conscience;
• equity aids the vigilant;
• equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy (i.e. equity will not allow a person whom it considers as having a good claim to be denied the right to sue);
• equity follows the law (i.e. equity follows the rules of common law unless there is a good reason to the contrary);
• equity looks at the intent not at the form (i.e. equity looks to the reality of what was intended rather than the way in which it is expressed);
• where the equities are equal, the earlier in time prevails (i.e. where rights are equal in worth or value, the earlier right created takes precedence over the later);
• he who seeks equity must do equity;
• he who comes to equity must come with clean hands (see equitable remedies);
• equality is equity;
• equity looks on that as done which ought to be done (see conversion);
• equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation (see satisfaction);
WHO seems to be intentionally vague and yet all encompasing with their verbiage regarding “equity”… For instance on May 3, 2022 the WHO says:
(b) Within the Equity category, although it was noted that many of the recommendations were published before equitable access to countermeasures emerged as a major challenge in the COVID-19 response, consistent priority themes include: strengthening coordination of local and regional support for research and development in health emergencies; transfer of technology and know-how; establishing a sustainable mechanism to ensure rapid development, timely, affordable, effective and equitable access to medical and non-pharmaceutical interventions, public health and social measures for health emergencies, including capacity for testing, scaled regional manufacturing and distribution; the development of norms and standards for digital technologies related to international travel; ensuring adherence to WHO’s allocation mechanisms for equitable access; addressing supply chain constraints; and for WHO, working with existing and established multilateral mechanisms to support countries in fragile, conflict-affected and vulnerable settings.
It sounds like WHO’s ideology of equity is contentious.
For instance, “ensuring adherence to WHO’s allocation mechanisms for equitable access” sounds like it could also have a hidden meaning of “a needle in every arm”, with strict adherence, if thats WHO’s latest “iron clad” guidance…
By the way, are you aware all WHO guidance comes with a legal disclaimer?
For instance: “2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV):
STRATEGIC PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PLAN
“However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use.”
The words and technical health advice provided to all nations are not even guaranteed… As noted by WHO’s legal team, “The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader.”
And if you “interpret” guidance put out by the WHO incorrectly, you could inequitably be locked out of your social media platforms or even have your financial gateways blocked.
We are asking Tedros for everyone: Do the CENSORED EXPERTS and JOURNALISTS get to weigh in on what “equity” looks like in terms of their right to online association, free speech free of persecution? Can they have equitable access to their right of association?
On May 17, 2022, Tedros publicly stated,
As you know, equity is one of the key principles behind the proposed pandemic preparedness accord.
During this pandemic we faced many challenges, including a lack of sharing information, a lack of sharing biological materials and a lack of sharing technology amongst others. This hampered the response, cost lives and revealed the limitations of the global preparedness. For the world to respond quickly and more effectively at the next outbreak or pandemic, the world must prepare now.
“The INB has now started a two-year process that includes global public hearings with ALL stakeholders.
This represents the world’s opportunity to plan together, detect pathogens quicker, share data broadly and collectively respond more effectively to the next diseases X or known pathogens.
Unfortunately, there has been a small minority of groups making misleading statements and purposefully distorting facts.
I want to be crystal clear. WHO’s agenda is public, open and transparent.
WHO stands strongly for individual rights.
We passionately support everyone’s right to health and we will do everything we can to ensure that that right is realized.
Interest of Justice makes an open call for Tedros to equitably allow ALL stakeholders to be heard on the public hearings record. Equity requires the WHO to slow down on their agenda to allow more time for more viewpoints to be heard by the public.
The public would get to democratically be informed of all sides of an issue with data.
The public would equitably be INCLUDED to vote on policies that will affect them.
All Health policy should be created and implemented by the primary stakeholders that will actually be affected by the policies. THAT is equitable..
The April 12 and 13, 2022 hearings had the publics written statements that were buried, never published, and the WHO website crashed due to the excess of submissions wanting to be heard, precisely because ALL stakeholders were NOT yet heard and wanted to be heard with only 6 days notice.
In the May 13, 2022 hearing in HHS Office of Global Affairs Interest of Justice spoke NINE times in the 2 hour session, precisely because they gave no notice and no one knew, and the HHS did not publicly allow in non participants and left no record.
Interest of Justice did speak up and we will post the transcripts and videos here soon. A few are on our Rumble page with the rest very soon.
The WHO’s sham “participatory” process an inequitable system of primary stakeholders total exclusion, all by WHO’s design, a situation that is injurious to peoples right to health on its face.
The WHO’s censorship policy is so inequitable it is tantamount to persecution of WHO’s scientific challengers, a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute, an untenable situation with severe imbalance of power, an imbalance harmful to health that negates the very purpose of WHO’s existence to protect health.
Interest of Justice calls on the WHO to immediately and equitably conduct a series of hearings with the THOUSANDS of persecuted and marginalized experts censored by youtube and other Trusted News Initiative apparatus. These hearings are required because the censored experts are primary stakeholders.
If the WHO is SERIOUS about their claim,“The INB has now started a two-year process that includes global public hearings with ALL stakeholders”, they would take Interest of Justice up on this open call to equitably compare science and verified datasets of WHO’s experts and our experts in a series of public forums on the record with access for all to see and review.
This discussion of “equity”, it’s going to need a TREATISE to define it. We are a civics and law institute and we are pretty certain Agenda 2030 and all the recent WHO agendas, built on the undefined word “equity”, are all actually in violation of the law of equity.
Expect a lengthy discussion on this WITH TEDROS as we persistently demand definitions and duty of substantiation from the WHO Director-General.
We cant have “one health” (whatever THAT means) without one set of definitions from the WHO that conform to the same definitions enshrined in national sovereignties legislation.
This a big deal. It really is. Just consult IHR Article 3 (4) which leaves the sovereign nations right to legislate and create their own health policies as a safe harbor from the WHO’s overreach!
Words. Spell-ing…
Health Equity is providing every person with the same opportunity to stay healthy and/or effectively cope with disease and crisis - regardless of their socio-economic conditions, race, gender, ethnicity, age, social status, and other socially determined factors - by identifying and addressing community- and group-specific barriers that prevent people from leading healthy and productive lives.
-- Schiavo, R. and Health Equity Initiative, 2012-2020
Share the petitions far and wide so we the people can have EQUITABLE say in the design, implementation and execution of all health policies that may affect us such as any proposed IHR amendments or pandemic accord treaty!!!
You can help support Interest of Justice in our fearless mission to legally hold the WHO to account! We’ve been cancel cultured by Stripe so we cannot offer paid subscriptions through Substack. If you enjoy our creations and you would like to support this cause we appreciate your kindness and you can support the upcoming lawsuits and ongoing legal efforts: https://interestofjustice.org/legal-fund
www.interestofjustice.org
www.stopcrimesagainsthumanity.org
Thanks for reading Interest of Justice! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
✓
Our Substack and legal work is free for all to access due to the generous support of donors.
It is you, the few donors we have, that singlehandedly make our ongoing legal work against WHO, FDA and Wrongdoer States possible.
