INTERIM UPDATE JULY 2024- PAGE 125

SPECIAL POWERS TO USE FORCE ON LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF NEW ZEALAND

SPECIAL POWERS: Special powers are authorized by the Minister of Health or by an Epidemic Notice – these apply where an emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act

THE POWER TO DETAIN: The power to detain, isolate, quarantined – allows a medical officer of health to ‘require persons’, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, animals or things to be isolated, quarantined or disinfected (Section 70 (1)(f) Can enter your property without a Warrant.

THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE PREVENTIVE TREATMENT: Allows a Medical Officer of Health, in respect of any person who has been isolated or quarantined, to require people to remain where they are isolated, quarantined until they have been medically examined and found to be free from infectious disease, and until they have undergone such preventive treatment as the Medical Officer of Health as prescribed.

THE USE OF FORCE: Section 71A states that a member of the Police may do anything reasonable necessary (including the use of force) to help a Medical Officer of Health or any person authorized by the Medical Officer of Health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under Sections 70 or 71

THE ONE HEALTH APPROACH: Has already been implemented, this is described as :- Humans, Animals- Wild and Domestic, Oceans, River waterways, soil, plants, tree’s, the whole world’s Eco-System is inter-connected. This is namely an ‘Earth System Governance’. A Global Environmental governance in times of turbulence to  create vast complex societies- globalized economies..corporate capture. (Earth systems are deeply connected)

THE MOBILIZING OF AN EARTH GOVERNANCE ALLIANCE: . This is at the forefront of moving towards the sustainable (Socialist Blueprint) global strategy the global transformation to leave no-one behind. Everyone, everywhere – at every age.

RESPONDING TO FUTURE PANDEMICS: The New Zealand Pandemic Plan sets out the health system strategy and framework for actions for preparing for and responding to future pandemics. It can be adopted and applied (with adaptations as necessary) to any pandemic event. It sets out the health system strategy and framework for actions in preparing for and responding to future pandemics. While the plan is focused on respiratory pathogens, such as influenza and COVID-19, it can be adopted and applied (with adaptations as necessary) to any pandemic, regardless of the nature of the pathogen and its severity. NOTE: REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PATHOGEN AND ITS SEVERITY

A DEMOCRACY WITHOUT BORDERS: A Mega new campaign aims at strengthening the ‘Global Environmental Governance’ (The Global Order)  A meeting was held in Geneva on the March 26^th 2024 as to  Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA) will serve as a platform to build a coalition of civil society organizations and like-minded states, along with legislators, experts, business actors and other stakeholders, who intend to work together in this field and amplify relevant initiatives. Climate Governance. MEGA Platforms. UN Member States at the Decision making table

Researcher Cassie

WakeUpNZ

Are we living in are globalist coup effectuated a wealthy powerful international elitists that are ambitiously determined to control all of humanity, executed by various International instruments, regulations, restrictions, controls and policies. Time and time again I hear leaders of UN Nation States, Christopher Luxon since becoming the leader of NZs  governing Coalition Party eluding to the International Rules Based Order. As an avid researcher my curiosity got the better of me as I asked myself “Is there a difference between International Law and the International Rules Based Order, if there is then what is it and what does it mean”?

My research led me to the following:-The International Rules Based Order ignores ‘Human Rights Laws”. That China’s Communist Government want their own ‘International Rules Based Order”

There are double standards when it comes to Human Rights however the Universal Declaration of Human Rights insists that the Rules Based International System must be founded on Human Right and applied to everyone, everywhere. Ever since UN’s creation there has been inadequate to say the least response to Human Rights violations that has taken place all around the world. Since the beginning of 2020 these have been massively violated mandating populations to become human lab rats, the injecting of experimental substances into the arms of babies, from the cradle to the grave. (IA 2030 leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere at every age’. The huge weaponizing of freedom of thought, opinion, speech, the tracing, tracking of civilians worldwide, building up a treasure trove  personal digital information, described as ‘Digital Governance’  (Digital Surveillance and Digital Censorship equates to a top down global  totalitarian Digital Regime .

Revolutionary Leftist Socialist minority groups hamstrung by demanded that they have self determining rights that the rest of the population must cede their self determining rights.. The global powerful International Rules Based Order that sparks fear into the minds of populations globally to obtain the Future they Want, this future is called ‘The wonderful world of Utopia, where we are all told time and time again ‘For the Common Good Of All’. Our Common Future, the communist global manifesto. Our Common Future includes everyone has exactly the same wants, beliefs, hopes etc., that peoples lifestyles are determined in in exactly the same way, the destruction of individual thoughts, individual lifestyles this is global Totalitarian Top Down Tyranny. (A Global Communist Regime controlling everyone, everything on this planet)

Hypocrisy and staggering double standards were UN Nation States cannot criticize human rights violations just because their interests are at stake. This has happened in NZ when the ACT Party put a motion into the House (Parliament)., calling China out on Genocide. In the end other parties were more worried about their relationship with China so took out the word Genocide and softened the content within the motion. (This quite simply explains how the International Rules Based Order works)  UN Member State Governments fail to put their heads above the parapet to take a stand against Human Rights Violations even when it comes to millions being tortured, imprisoned and murdered. No wonder within the parameters of UN States themselves Human Rights Abuses continue to happen.  All that this International Rules Based Order can use as an excuse is ‘Blame Colonization’. Wake up the whole world has been colonized by different cultures, ethnicities, tribes etc.,  Whats the real reason? Of course its globalized Citizenship a One World International Order to rule, order the populations of the world.

Time and time again they voice its all about race, I disagree, if they can find an excuse they will use it. Its all about divide, conquer and the victim approach, the blame and shame game. Destroy westernization destroy the family destroy your personal identity, destroy sovereign nations, mass migration dilute traditional sovereign nations, destroy Christianity, destroy motherhood and fatherhood replace XX and XY with LGBTQ1+ 120 or more gender ideologies. Replace Science and Biology with Ideology  and dramatic theatre. UN Nation States Governments have jumped on board with this, hence we have an uncontrollable corrupted insane world. Corrupt, disruptive Woke institutions that are fully funded and promoted by Human Rights Commissions. The Rules based order is seen as a concept developed by political scientists and politicians that does not take into fall account International Law

The International Rules Based System makes no attempt to proclaim a legal order with defined rules and law making. It is an alternative regime outside that of the discipline of International Law which actually threatens individuals rights, instead works for the revolutionary collective minority groups. Political scientists often study elites, who seek to acquire and to maintain power by invoking and manipulating international law to suit their own individual interests, they fit nicely under that of which I call an International Rules Based System.

International Law is the independent good for all citizens of the world promotes individualism (individual human rights) Where each of us all have self determining rights. Freedom of speech is where any sort of voiced opinion criticism lies in the ears of the beholders not controlled by a top down totalitarian regime. The Rules and Principles of International Law are universally accepted principles of international law include the following: that a state will respect the sovereign equality of all states; that a state will refrain from the threat or use of force against another state except in self-defence; and that states will settle their dispute by peaceful means. The ultimate basis of international obligation, for sociological jurists, is the society itself. They contend that social necessities provide not only the origin, but also the basis and the validating criterion of law

International Law is premised on the values of the internal community enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The  deliberate ignorance to condoning of massive Human Rights Violations fits under the International Rules Based System where genocidal communist regimes and socialist leftist are protected, where corrupt feet of the WEF C EO’s have their feet under the table of the UN which I personally believe is the International Rules Based System. The International Rules based System has been described as “nothing but a tool for a select group of  global elitists, for selective countries to advance their own exploitive ambitions. Under the International Rules Based Order there is an overarching authority enforcement authority that often goes completely unchallenged. UN Nation States Government sign the citizens of the country up to UN Treaties, Agreements without any consideration as to what the majority population want or do not want, this goes unchallenged, the collaboration of an International Rules Based System (Order)

The ultimate basis of international obligation, for sociological jurists, is the society itself. They contend that social necessities provide not only the origin, but also the basis and the validating criterion of law. “China exhibits a flexible approach to international law that enables it to benefit from and exploit the international order without the need to advocate changes to the letter of the law in most areas”. But China wants it own International Rules Based Order

RESEARCHER: Carol Sakey (Cassie)

Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 was originally titled ‘Our Common Future’, the planning of societal change takes place decades before the public see any signs of the implementation, by this time it is being sold to them in the form of a benefit’.  The future we will all have in common. The planning of economic and societal transformation, this has taken decades now the public can see this for themselves, but sadly many people still put their heads in the sand, completely ignore it to the detriment of this generation and future generations to come. This is the blueprint to control all our basic needs to survive, water, plants, human, animals- wild and domestic under the concept of what is called a ‘One Health Approach’ which is already embedded in the International Rules Based Order.  (Control of the whole Ecosystem) This is a recipe for destruction in every country village, township, city, region worldwide. This is a massive public relations scam that’s happening worldwide for ‘No-one to be left behind, everyone, everywhere at every age’. Right now the International Rules Based Order is implementing a plan called ‘De-growth’. This is the New Normal, the Great Reset the transformation for the 21^st Century and beyond for the so called common good of all. Restrictions, mandates, isolation, controlling mechanisms for the common good of all. The Great Reset must be the peoples Great Resist if we are to survive with all our dignity intact.

The Global Agenda for the 21^st Century is an inventory and control plan of what energy you take in and what goes out, monitoring measuring cities, targeting humans, you are the carbon they want to restrict- control- deplete, as populations are moved into these ever increasing highly dense cities. Diluting traditions, cultures of individual nations by way of implementing mass migration from developing countries. The dangerous path to Globalized Citizenship. The restricting of mobility, being easily monitored and controlled. Violating private property rights, parental rights. The reducing of consumption, usage- degrowth. The takeover of the Sovereign Nation State. This is the mapping of the ‘End Game’, the implementation of unelected global actors, global dictatorship of totalitarian sociopaths all at citizens, peoples, populations expense worldwide. Remove Human Activity from the Rural Areas these are to be called ‘wild lands, they use “concern for extreme population projection’.

UNEP, UN Environmental Programme, UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) is also known as the ‘Earth Summit’ held in Rio de Janeiro Brazil in June 1992. This was the largest summit ever, it focused on the global socioeconomic activities and how they were predicted to have an effect on the environment. Climate doomism being caused by human activity, this was a way that worldwide influential leaders could come together, policymakers, diplomats, CEO’s, Scientists and of course the global propaganda machine Government leaders and NGO’s, representatives of 176 States and territories. Several UN organizations and specialized agencies, 35 intergovernmental organization and 1500 plusnon-governmental organizations. This coincided with the World Environment Day the 5^th June. Environmentalism  (Eco-socialism) was about to spread worldwide. A Global governance of Eco Socialism. The International environmental Treaty, the power and influence over international systems worldwide as a whole.. Political, Economical, Environmental  Global Governance. The Brundtland Report established the coined phrase  ‘Sustainable Development’. The plan at the time was transforming modern society, it cultural, economic, political and scientific components it was reported ‘ this is in order to tackle dramatic environmental destruction’. The World Commission on Environment and Development ‘Our Common Future (1987) is titled ‘A GLOBAL AGENDA FOR CHANGE’ (The Brundtland Report) .. chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister  Gro-Harlem Brundtland This included the role of the International economy, food security and monitoring, Sustainable Development Towards Common Action  Our Common Future, From One Earth to One World  (The UN World Commission on Environment and Development)

Sustainable Development Towards Common Action. The calling  for a common endeavor and for new norms of behavior at all levels and in the interests of all. The changes in attitudes, in social values, and in aspirations that the report urges will depend on vast campaigns of education, debate and public participation. To this end, we appeal to “citizens” groups, to non governmental organizations, to educational institutions, and to the scientific community. They have all played indispensable roles in the creation of public awareness and political change in the past. They will play a crucial part in putting the world onto sustainable development paths, in laying the groundwork for Our Common Future. The process that produced this unanimous report proven that it is possible to join forces, to identify common goals, and to agree on common action. Governments, individually and collectively, have the principal responsibility to do this. UNEP’s Earthwatch programme should be the centre of leadership in the UN system on risk assessment 95. However, given the politically sensitive nature of many of the most critical risks, there is also a need for an independent but complementary capacity to assess and report on critical global risks. A new international programme for cooperation among largely non-governmental organizations, scientific bodies, and industry groups should therefore be established for this purpose. 4.4 Making Informed Choices 96. Making the difficult choices involved in achieving sustainable development will depend on the widespread support and involvement of an informed public and of NGOs, the scientific community, and industry. Their rights, roles and participation in development planning, decision-making, and project implementation should be expanded. 4.5 Providing the Legal Means 97. National and international law is being rapidly outdistanced by the accelerating pace and expanding scale of impacts on the ecological basis of development

Jacinda Ardern and the Earth watch Program and her leadership of the International Socialist Youth. Just a segment of our so called ‘Our Common Future’ under the regime of a One World Stakeholder Governance of Eco Socialism. The art of looking for trouble and finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly applying the wrong remedies, battling ideologies instead of working alongside uncertainties of science, and XX and XY of biology that has been insanely replaced by the Wokeism of  120 or more gender ideologies and throw in a few cat and dog human ideological agenda too.  Progressive global geopolitics,  sharing of variants of pathogen, the global human laboratory of lab rats worldwide. Bio-Digital Convergence and digital control where all people worldwide have digital identities to create a global utopia. Our so called Common Future is governed by a Communist top down global regime.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2012.11906507

5987our-common-future.pdf (un.org)

A new agreement with the World Economic Forum gives multinational corporations influence over matters of global governance.

Harris Gleckman

Anew corporate and government marriage quietly took place last week when the leadership of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to partner with each other. While this MOU is proudly displayed on the WEF website, it is nowhere to be found on the UN website. The only indication on the UN website of this important new development is a picture of the pen used to sign the agreement, and two pictures of the signing ceremony.

One reason for this difference is that the UN’s corporate-centered Global Compact has received a good deal of bad press. Now the new WEF-UN agreement creates a second special place for multinational corporations inside the UN. There is no similar institutional homes in the UN system for civil society, for academics, for religious leaders, or for youth. It is hard to imagine a national government signing a similar formal partnership with one of its business organizations.

At the same time, the UN is under pressure from Donald Trump who wants to deconstruct the whole multilateral system. For Trump, dismantling the international system built after World War II is a companion piece to his domestic effort at deconstructing the administrative state. For the Secretary-General of the UN, the pact with the WEF may well be his effort to find new power actors who can support the current system, which is now celebrating its 75th anniversary, in the face of Trump’s onslaught.

On the other side, the WEF recently received significant public criticism after giving Hungarian Prime Minister Orban and Brazilian President Bolsonaro a warm welcome at its 2019 Davos gathering. This marriage may be seen as a way for the WEF to re-establish itself as part of the global governance center.

The timing and managing of public perceptions are not the only interesting aspect of this arrangement. In 2009, the WEF published a 600 page report entitled the Global Redesign Initiative, which called for a new system of global governing, one in which the decisions of governments could be made secondary to multistakeholder led initiatives in which corporations would play a defining role. In a sense this WEF study recommended a sort of public-private United “Nations” – something that has now been formalized in this MOU. The agreement announces new multistakeholder partnerships to deliver public goods in the fields of education, women, financing, climate change, and health.

The rather detailed MOU includes forms of cross organizational engagement up and down the UN structure. The MOU contains commitments that the Secretary-General himself will be invited to deliver a keynote address at the WEF annual Davos gatherings. His senior staff and the heads of the UN programmes, funds, and agencies will also be invited to participate in regional level meetings hosted by the WEF. It also contains a promise that the UN’s individual country representatives will explore ways to work with WEF’s national Forum Hubs. Aware of the mutual importance of public legitimacy each institution can provide for the other, the MOU also contains an agreement to cross-publicize their joint activities.

Besides the institutional blessing of the United Nations, what does the WEF get from the MOU? The scope of each of the five fields for joint attention is narrowed down from the intergovernmentally negotiated and agreed set of goals to one with more in line with the business interests of WEF members. So under financing, the MOU calls only for ‘build[ing] a shared understanding of sustainable investing’ but not for reducing banking induced instabilities and tax avoidance.

Under climate change, it calls for ‘ …public commitments from the private sector to reach carbon neutrality by 2050’, not actions that result in carbon neutrality by 2030 . Under education, it re-defines the Sustainable Development education goal to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education’ into one that focuses on education to meet the ‘rapidly changing world of work.’ The MOU explicitly restricts the WEF from making financial contributions to the UN, which might have ameliorated the economic impact of some of Trump’s threat to the budgets of the UN system. At the same time, it avoids any commitment to reduce global inequality, to make energy affordable, to hold multinational corporations accountable for human rights violations, or even to rein in the behavior of the WEF’s firms that act inconsistently to the re-defined goals set out in the agreement.

All this joint work might have some practical good if it were not for three crucial elements: firstly, the agreement circumvents the intergovernmental review process; secondly, the agreement elevates multistakeholderism as the solution to the problems with the current multilateral system; and thirdly the proposed multistakeholder partnerships are not governed by any formal democratic system. Were the Secretary-General convinced of the wisdom of a UN marriage with the WEF, he could have submitted the draft MOU for approval by the member states. Instead, the Secretary-General joined the WEF in declaring in effect that multistakeholder groups without any formal intergovernmental oversight are a better governance system than a one-country-one-vote system.

All multistakeholder governance groups are largely composed of a self-selected group of multinational corporations and those organizations and individuals that they want to work with. They work without any common internal rule book to protect the views of all who might be impacted by the group. Participation in multistakeholder group is a voluntary undertaking. The drop-in-drop-out arrangements are antithetical to the UN’s efforts for 75 years to build a stable secure global governance system with a clear understanding of obligations, responsibilities and liabilities.

What is surprising is that by accepting this marriage arrangement with the WEF, the Secretary-General of the UN is marginalizing the intergovernmental system in order to ‘save’ it.

Open Democracy 2^nd July 2019

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/how-united-nations-quietly-being-turned-public-private-partnership/?source=in-article-related-story