Is democracy a sinking ship?
- jearungby
- Jun 30, 2024
- 3 min read
By Jeanne Rungby, specialist doctor.
In a letter dated 22/03/24 to the Epidemic Committee's Pelle Dragsted, EL, Minister of Health Sophie Løhde has confirmed that she intends to accede to a new international pandemic treaty together with other EU member states.
She writes (selected quotes): " The government supports the establishment of an international pandemic agreement. By setting the framework for cross-sector cooperation with a focus on human rights and based on principles of justice, inclusion and transparency, an international pandemic agreement can help raise the level of global health security through strengthening the countries' national preparedness and capacities and stronger international cooperation .”
It also appears from a letter sent by Sophie Løhde to the freedom movement's joint council (FBF) on 05.04.24 that the WHO has on 26 November 2022 sent a letter with proposed amendments to the international health regulations (IHR) to all member states.
These member states must have taken an active position on these changes within 17 months from 26 November 2022. Presumably this will take place at the 77th World Health Assembly, which will take place in May 2024.
In a month!
Where did the public debate go?
1. How is it that the Epidemic Committee has not been aware of the government's plans to join the pandemic treaty until now? And how does it harmonize with transparency that this case has not yet been out for public debate?
2. What changes are involved, and is it true that these changes are against the constitution because sovereignty is surrendered?
3. If the government wants to cede sovereignty to the Director-General of the WHO without a referendum, has there been a vote in the Norwegian Parliament according to section 20 of the constitution, which states that 5/6 of the Norwegian Parliament must have voted for the proposal?
4. One of the amendments in the treaty amendments is the removal of consideration for human rights. How does this harmonize with the minister's answer to Pelle Dragsted, where it is precisely the consideration of human rights that is used as an argument for acceding to the agreement?
5. Thanks to Pelle Dragsted for putting the question to the Minister of Health. How have the Epidemiological Committee and Pelle Dragsted reacted to the letter from the Minister of Health?
6. How is the word health security defined?
7. If sovereignty is ceded to the director-general, what democratic control measures vis-à-vis the director-general are envisaged in the treaty amendments?
Lawyer Eric Sørensen has reviewed the proposed amendments to the pandemic treaty. With knowledge of the constitution, he concludes that the proposed changes to the WHO treaty (IHR) and the proposal for the new WHO Pandemic Agreement
- transfers significant national sovereignty to the WHO and specifically to the Secretary-General who presides at all times .
Eric Sørensen emphasizes that the WHO is a predominantly privately funded organization that is considered a public authority, cf. Section 19 of the Constitution.
The WHO is substantially (80%) funded by private interests, predominantly the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the association of vaccine manufacturers, GAVI.
In the present draft treaty, the decision-making competence - with great influence on Danish health policy, private property rights, freedom of speech and expenses incurred for use in other countries - is largely transferred to an individual. According to Eric Sørensen, it is hardly the grassroots organization that was intended with the government's authority under Section 19 of the Constitution.
Lawyer Eric Sørensen therefore believes the following.
Both treaty texts contain a number of provisions which, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in the Maastricht case, constitute a transfer of sovereignty . Furthermore, in his view, a number of the proposed provisions constitute violations of the Basic Law .
Read Eric Sørensen's entire debate post here.
Comments