The 2024 amendments to the World Health Organization's International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted on June 1, 2024, at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, have sparked alarm over their potential to erode national sovereignty and individual freedoms. Set to take effect on September 19, 2025, unless countries opt out by July 19, 2025, these amendments grant unprecedented authority to the WHO, raising concerns about global overreach, diminished human rights, and the imposition of centralised control under the guise of public health.
The IHR Amendments: What's at Stake?
The IHR, first adopted in 1969 and last revised in 2005, are a legally binding framework governing 196 WHO member states, including Australia and Canada, to manage public health emergencies. The 2024 amendments, prompted by lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, introduce significant changes that critics argue prioritise global control over national autonomy. Key provisions include:
Expanded WHO Authority: The amendments empower the WHO Director-General to declare a "pandemic emergency," a new tier of alert above a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). This can be triggered even without a local outbreak in a country, potentially subjecting nations like Australia to global recommendations that become de facto policy.
Non-Binding but Coercive: The WHO claims its recommendations are not legally binding, stating, "WHO will have no ability to impose any health measure, including lockdowns or other restrictions, on the populations of any country." However, historical precedent from COVID-19 shows that "non-binding" recommendations often translate into enforced measures like lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and travel restrictions due to political and social pressures.
Replacement of Human Rights Language: The amendments remove references to "dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms," replacing them with terms like "equity," "inclusivity," and "coherence." Critics argue these vague terms open the door to justifying surveillance, digital IDs, and forced medical interventions under the pretext of fairness. For instance, "equity" could be interpreted to mandate universal interventions, sidelining individual choice.
National IHR Authorities: The amendments encourage the creation of unelected "National IHR Authorities" to enforce WHO directives, potentially bypassing democratic processes. These bodies, supported by global NGOs and digital surveillance systems, could facilitate cross-border data sharing and health passports, raising privacy concerns.
Shortened Opt-Out Window: Previously, states had 18 months to reject IHR amendments. The 2022 revisions reduced this to 10 months, meaning Australia and Canada must opt out by July 19, 2025, or be bound by the amendments. This compressed timeline limits public debate and parliamentary scrutiny.
Israel has already opted out, citing risks to sovereignty, security, and economic interests, as articulated in its Plenary Statement at the 2024 World Health Assembly. This sets a precedent for other nations to follow.
Implications for Australia and Canada
For Australia and Canada, the amendments pose significant risks:
Sovereignty Erosion: The WHO's ability to influence national policy through "pandemic emergency" declarations could override local decision-making. Australia's Health Minister Mark Butler and Canada's government are actively preparing to implement these amendments, with Canada planning to table them in Parliament in 2025. Failure to reject them by July 19, 2025, could lock both nations into compliance.
Loss of Individual Rights: The removal of "human rights" and "dignity" from the IHR text signals a shift toward collectivist principles. Critics like Dr. Silvia Behrendt warn that these changes entrench a "securitised" approach to health, choosing control over individual autonomy. During COVID-19, both countries enforced strict measures, Australia's hotel quarantines and Canada's ArriveCAN app, demonstrating how global recommendations can translate into local oppression.
Economic and Social Control: The amendments' focus on digital health documents and cross-border data sharing could normalise surveillance systems. Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is already aligning with global standards, potentially integrating WHO-driven digital IDs. Canada's collaboration with provinces to align domestic laws with the IHR suggests readiness to adopt these systems. Such measures could restrict travel, employment, or access to services based on health compliance.
Lessons from COVID-19: The claim that these amendments are not legally binding echoes assurances during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet governments worldwide implemented draconian measures. The fear-driven compliance, coupled with lists of "non-compliant" individuals, as noted by Jessica Rose, suggests future emergencies could escalate control mechanisms, potentially targeting dissenters.
The Globalist Agenda and Public Resistance
Critics argue the IHR amendments reflect a broader globalist agenda to centralise power. The WHO's partnerships with public-private entities, like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and its push for digital health tools, raise concerns about unelected technocrats dictating policy. The replacement of "dignity" with "equity" is seen as a deliberate shift toward collectivism, where individual rights are subordinated to state-defined fairness.
Public sentiment, as seen in posts on X, reflects growing distrust. Activists urge citizens to reject the amendments, citing Israel's opt-out as a model. In Australia, groups like CitizenGO and the Aligned Council of Australia are circulating petitions to pressure MPs, while Canada's ratification process is under scrutiny. The lack of public debate, described as a "quiet betrayal," fuels accusations of a globalist coup.
Action Steps to Protect Sovereignty
To counter this threat, immediate action is critical:
Contact Elected Officials: Australians should email Health Minister Mark Butler (
Sign Petitions: Support campaigns like CitizenGO (citizengo.org/en-au/node/15863) and the Aligned Council of Australia (aurejectwho.com.au) to amplify resistance.
Raise Awareness: Share information through social media, community groups, and local networks. The mainstream media's silence necessitates grassroots efforts to inform others.
Know Your Rights: As Jessica Rose emphasises, individual sovereignty is paramount. No one can legally force medical interventions or restrict movement without consent. Educate yourself on local laws to resist overreach.
Demand Transparency: Push for parliamentary debates and referendums in Australia and Canada to ensure democratic oversight. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) in Australia must scrutinise the amendments before acceptance.
Conclusion
The 2024 IHR amendments, set to take effect on September 19, 2025, represent a significant escalation in global health governance, threatening national sovereignty and individual freedoms. By replacing "dignity" and "human rights" with "equity" and enabling the WHO to influence policy through unelected authorities, these changes risk repeating the authoritarian measures of the COVID-19 era on a larger scale. Australia and Canada have until July 19, 2025, to opt out and preserve their autonomy. Citizens must act swiftly, contacting officials, signing petitions, and spreading awareness, to reject this globalist framework and defend their rights. The fight is not just for health freedom but for the very sovereignty of nations and the dignity of individuals.
https://nationfirst.substack.com/p/five-days-to-midnight
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/replacing-human-dignity-with-equity