This last week the Oklahoma legislature has joined Louisiana in passing a law prohibiting the enforcement of dictates from supranational bodies within state boundaries.  Most particularly, it nullifies the monopoly power over global health sought by the World Health Authority.

SECTION 1. NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 6301 of Title 74, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma. The state and its political subdivisions, including, but not limited to, counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities, shall not engage in the enforcement of, or any collaboration with the enforcement of, any requirements, instructions, mandates, recommendations, or guidance provided by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum.

B. Any mandates, recommendations, instructions, communications or guidance issued by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum shall not be used in this state as a basis for action, nor to direct, order or otherwise impose, contrary to the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma any requirements whatsoever, including those for masks, vaccines or
medical testing, or gather any public or private information about the state’s citizens or residents, and shall have no force or effect in the State of Oklahoma.

SECTION 2.

This act shall become effective June 1, 2024.

SECTION 3.

It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.”

Passed the House of Representatives the 24th day of April, 2024.

In a number of countries there has been opposition to the WHO’s pandemic treaty, some governmental, some not.  All see in it a naked bid for technocratic totalitarianism in health:

■ New Zealand’s new coalition government will reserve against proposed amendments to IHR.
■ Slovakia’s prime minister announced the government will not support strengthening the WHO.
■ A comprehensive bill by a congressman is gaining traction and public support in the Philippines.
■ Two South African parliamentarians champion the WHO Withdrawal Bill and mobilise on it.
■ A Parliamentarian in the Netherlands filed a letter making a reservation due to lack of due process.
■ Eleven European Union parliamentarians are formally challenging procedural failures in IHR amendments.
■ Bill HR 79 (to defund and exit WHO) was introduced by United States Congressman Andy Biggs.
■ Parliamentarians continue advocating to reject IHR amendments and question the WHO in Japan.
■ A letter from the Australian people communicates rejection of the WHO’s proposed amendments to the IHR.

Inevitably, the British government describes itself as a leading force in the formation of the pandemic treaty.  It was a signatory to the original joint-letter proposing the treaty.  The other signatory governments were a motley group of twenty-two, namely Fiji, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Kenya, France, Germany, Greece, Korea, Chile, Costa Rica, Albania, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Netherlands, Tunisia, Senegal, Spain, Norway, Serbia, Indonesia, and Ukraine.  The Chinese and US governments did not sign but indicated strong support.

The date for agreeing the text of the new instrument is at the World Health Assembly at the UN in New York in May 2024.