New Zealand, the Pandemic Tyranny State! By James Reed
At first, I thought this was fake news, but I followed the item up, and it is unfortunately true. New Zealand has updated its Pandemic Plan, whichgives the government the power to mandate vaccines, and to use force via the police to vaccinate. As noted below at Children's Health Defense, none of this is new, and pre-existing legislation already gives the health authorities the power to do much this, including the Health Act of 1956, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act of 2002 and the Epidemic Preparedness Act of 2006. This has been sleeper powers sitting on the books ready to go if necessary. The population has no idea of what the government can do to them.
That being so, the recent Plandemic Plan brings these powers together. Thus if an emergency has been called under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, the powers are enlivened, and that does not necessarily involve any pandemic. A medical officer will then have the power to detain, isolate or quarantine, to "require persons, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, animals, or things to be isolated, quarantined, or disinfected." (section 70(1)(f)). That includes people. And they can be held in quarantine until the medical officer decides they need not, being free from disease or having treatment, namely vaccination: section 70(1)(h). Section 71A gives the power to the police to aid in vaccination by force.
This same medicocratic tyranny is likely to be dropped o Aussies too in he lead up to the next plandemic, which we all thought was bird flu, but according to th WHO, may be a new, improved version of M-Pox, once known as Monkey Pox, a story to be covered.
"Health New Zealand last month announced an interim update of its Pandemic Plan, which according to media reports, includes giving the government new powers to mandate vaccines — through the use of force where necessary — in the event the World Health Organization (WHO) announces another pandemic.
The announcement triggered an outcry on social media and a series of articles on Substack, ZeroHedge and elsewhere decrying the new government powers.
However, New Zealand attorney Kirsten Murfitt, who has been involved with efforts to stop the country from signing on to the WHO pandemic treaty, told The Defender the provisions people are alarmed about in the Pandemic Plan are not new and the interpretations circulating were skewed.
The new plan, which updates the existing 2017 plan, incorporates "lessons learnt" from the COVID-19 pandemic response. Critics said the new lessons were incorporated even before the Royal Commission investigating the COVID-19 pandemic response finished its inquiry.
Key changes include broadening the scope of the plan to cover "respiratory-type pathogens of pandemic potential," bringing the plan into line with legislative changes made in 2022, and clarifying the role of Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health, according to the Analysis & Policy Observatory, a nonprofit policy research platform.
But the plan also refers to actions that are authorized by a number of long-existing New Zealand statutes, including the Health Act of 1956, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act of 2002 and the Epidemic Preparedness Act of 2006.
On X, formerly Twitter, Murfitt shared detailed excerpts from the texts of each statute, noting that the clauses people were particularly concerned about were passed in 1956. That includes the section that states a "member of the police may do anything reasonably necessary (including the use of force) to help a medical officer of health" perform their authorized functions.
It is important to recognize, she said in another post on X, that despite this concerning language, "There is no 'compulsory treatment' for Infectious and Notifiable Diseases in New Zealand under the latest Pandemic Plan."
The Health Act of 1956 specifies that the authorized functions of a medical officer include things like giving direction to an individual posing a public health risk, however, "in no case may a direction require an individual to submit to compulsory treatment."
The same prohibition on compulsory treatment applies to people who have been exposed to someone posing a public health risk, Murfitt said on X. The powers in the new plan are the same powers that existed before — including powers rolled out during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as compulsory testing, quarantine and denying unvaccinated people entry into the country.
The limitations on the power of public health officials, she said, "is no doubt why mandates were used for the vaccine rollout, instead of compulsory vaccinations."
It is possible, though, that "Parliament could change the legislation in the future," she wrote.
Taking the time to analyze the details before sounding the public alarm is important, Murfitt wrote on X:
"We have been through a lot since 2020 and we know that they could repeat what happened at any moment but we need to keep calm and research matters before posting and scaring people. We all know if we make one little mistake (and we all make mistakes including me) that they will use it against us.
"With that said I have the greatest respect for everyone that is standing up publicly and I encourage others to have the courage to do so."
Guy Hatchard, Ph.D., who runs a popular COVID-19 website in New Zealand said the primary problem with the plan is that for over 200 pages, the plan "rambles on rubber stamping all the mistakes of the Covid pandemic response."
"It dictates that in the near future we will do it all again — lockdowns, masks, vaccines, antivirals, mandates, social distancing, isolation, school and business closures, and censorship of media content," he wrote.
Hatchard also questioned how the government could issue a document validating all of the government's actions when it hasn't concluded its investigations into how those actions played out. He suggested it may be because the chief commissioner of the investigation was himself involved in developing the COVID-19 pandemic response policies.
The plan also states that pandemics are of zoonotic origin, calls the COVID-19 vaccines "safe and effective" and addresses none of the issues related to ongoing excess deaths or vaccine side effects.
Hatchard concluded:
"A close reading of this provision reveals that Health New Zealand expects the right to wield very broad powers during future pandemics, even broader than those it was granted during the Covid pandemic.
"Despite the frightening written word, Health New Zealand is clearly out of touch with reality. They are not managing the current health of New Zealand, how could they possibly imagine their failed policies will succeed in future?
"They may well find that the public rejects their myopic vision."
Why an interim plan now?
In an interview on Reality Check Radio today, Murfitt discussed the plan with her colleague, attorney Katie Ashby-Koppens, and host Paul Brennan.
Ashby-Koppens said part of the panicked public response was because the document has "come out at a time when trust [of government] is at an all time low."
Murfitt said she also thought a good way to prepare the public to be manipulated would be "have people in a complete state of fear," which is precisely the effect the document was having.
"This is all being done around the fact that 'the next pandemic' is just around the corner," Ashby-Koppens said. "It's a document that's sort of just setting things up."
She added that the people analyzing the "lessons learned" and incorporating them into the new plan are the same people who were architects of the COVID-19 response, and no critical reflection on that process is apparent in the document.
Seeing how the last four years played out, she said, people have reason to be concerned about what could come next.
Brennan pointed to alarming reports about a "bird flu pandemic" on the horizon, and the fact there is a Bird Flu Summit scheduled in Washington for the first week in October.
Ashby-Koppens said the new document refers explicitly to the current strain of bird flu. "I think if we can't draw a link in the next year, I'd be surprised," she said.
Murfitt said she understood the fear surrounding the document, adding that even the existing health powers outlined in it have the potential to be used in alarming ways.
It is also clear, she said, that entities like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation are set on pushing more vaccinations on everyone.
"I think we're in for a really interesting time, but we've just got to keep calm and not overreact," Murfitt said.
"I think one thing that people can really do at the moment is actually speak out in their own name," she said. "By speaking up and out about it sensibly, not making it a huge conspiracy theory, having the facts, it will actually bring more people along to speak about it as well."
"It's time to speak out. Things are moving fast," she said. "It seems to be accelerating in many ways. And once again, I'm not trying to be alarmist, but this stops when we all stand up and just say, 'No.'"
Comments