The DISHONESTY of the FCTC

Some of the trickery of the controllers of the FCTC is hard to believe. So much of it looks like ‘conspiracy theory’ that it is hard to believe that it can be real. But it is.

Dick Puddlecote provided the link (second item down about the WHO/FCTC jamboree in Moscow). That link led to the Japan Tobacco International site:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1421358/shutting-out-public-from-who-meetings-highly-questionable-according-to-international-law-expert

and an article entitled:

“Shutting Out Public from WHO Meetings ‘Highly Questionable,’ According to International Law Expert”

The title of the article speaks for itself. IE, the WHO/FCTC gang’s decisions to exclude ‘the public’ from some of its meetings is of doubtful legitimacy. When we say ‘the public’, we are not referring only to individuals. ‘The Public’ also includes the press and any organisation other than ‘Observers’. ‘Observers’ are representatives of organisations which have been approved by the WHO as ‘suitable’ to be ‘Observers’, aka fellow travellers and Zealots. By this ruse, anyone suspected of being a Big Tobacco Spy can be excluded, so that no information is available to Big Tobacco about the plans of the FCTC Zealots. But because the FCTC organisation is part of the UN, its rules demand that its deliberations are public. Secrecy is not permitted.

What the ‘International Law Expert’ spotted in his examination of the FCTC ‘Rules’ is a ‘get-out’ clause. These sort of clauses are common. For example, our laws about tobacco products define RYO tobacco as ‘shredded to a width not exceeding one millimetre (among other things)’, but there is a ‘catch-all’ clause – ‘or any other definition as decided by the Sec of State’ (words to that effect). The ‘get-out’ clause that the ‘Expert’ saw in the FCTC rules is similar. Because the WHO/FCTC is a ‘Government’ (because it has power) entity, it must be transparent (otherwise, it may become tyrannical), which means that its activities must be open to ‘public’ (especially the press) scrutiny. The clever trick was to create a rule that ‘all deliberations’ must be ‘in public’ except for those matters which need to be private. No examples are given, but one could imagine a situation where statements could be made which would be slanderous, if they were made in public.

But you can see how that ‘get-out’ clause can be used as an excuse to exclude ‘the public’ from every meeting simply by saying that the subject of the meeting is ‘sensitive’. ALL meetings could be described thus. The ‘get-out’ clause permits it.

At this point, I can provide a link to the actual ‘opinion’ of the ‘International Legal Expert’ , Sir Franklin Berman QC. He does not seem to be a legal quack, according to his CV.

http://www.jti.com/files/2214/1207/8735/Advocacy_-_Sir_Franklin_Berman_QC_Opinion_-_12_February_2014.pdf

It would be nice to go into detail, but space, time and attention preclude. Read it yourself.

But I can draw attention to certain bits. Unfortunately, the text cannot be copied and pasted (presumably, deliberately so), so I’ll type a bit out.

At the bottom of page 5:

“……COP (Conference Of the Parties) business….. shall be held in public UNLESS [my caps and emphasis] the COP decides that they should be restricted”

There you have it – the excuse to declare anything at all ‘restricted’.

And that is what has been done. By the use of that clause, the Controllers of the Conference of the Parties have excluded Public Accountability.

Sir Franklin Berman goes into great detail, but the essence of the problem is contained right there.

=====

It is fitting that the COP meeting is being held in Moscow, amid murder and mayhem in The Ukraine’. Stalin would be proud.

 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “The DISHONESTY of the FCTC”

  1. Frank Davis Says:

    the WHO/FCTC is a ‘Government’ (because it has power) entity, it must be transparent (otherwise, it may become tyrannical)

    It already is tyrannical.

    I think it’s actually a good thing (for us) that the media are being excluded, because that’s not likely to endear them to the media. I seem to remember reading that they excluded Interpol from some recent bash of theirs, and I’m sure that didn’t endear them to Interpol. With more and more people being excluded (and not just tobacco companies), it looks to me like the WHO are making themselves more and more enemies.

    • junican Says:

      The ‘principle’ of transparency depends upon the monopolistic nature of Government. Monopoly is a form of tyranny. Transparency is critical to avoid ‘blitzkriegs’ of tyrannous laws. Thus, MPs must know why laws have been proposed. What has happened with anti-smoking laws is that ‘the principle of transparency’ has been subverted to become propaganda.
      At the time of the Smoking Ban, it is clear that MPs were either asleep on the job, or criminally misled, or both.

  2. Tobacco Control Must Be Destroyed | Frank Davis Says:

    […] antismoking scum about to descend on Moscow, and exclude the public from their deliberations about the next stage of smoker persecution, H/T Dick Puddlecote for highlighting the Anti-Smoking […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: