Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

This Saturday, 19 July 2025, unless the Albanese Government does an about-face, Australia will fall under a binding international law that gives the World Health Organization (WHO) unprecedented power over our nation.

Not next year. Not in theory. This Saturday.

You didn’t vote for it. You weren’t asked. There was no national debate, no referendum, no headlines on the evening news. Just a quiet betrayal buried under layers of bureaucratic sludge and globalist double-speak.

I’ve read the official document, the amended International Health Regulations (IHR) adopted at the 77th World Health Assembly, and let me tell you:

It is nothing short of a globalist coup.

WHO Legal Framework Becomes Binding on 19 July 2025

On Saturday, the WHO will gain the legal framework to pressure Australia into lockdowns, forced medical interventions, travel restrictions, digital health passports, and supply chain mandates all declared at the whim of one unelected man: the WHO Director-General.

Don’t believe me? Let’s get to the facts.

Under these amendments:

• The WHO can declare a “public health emergency” even if there’s no outbreak in Australia. That’s right, some foreign virus in Timbuktu, and we’re suddenly subject to international “recommendations” that magically become policy the second our cowardly bureaucrats bow their heads.
• The phrase “with full respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” has been deleted. Gone. Replaced by weasel words like “equity” and “inclusivity” — terms that sound nice until they’re used to justify surveillance, censorship, and mass control.
• A new “National IHR Authority” will enforce compliance. And no, it doesn’t answer to you. It answers to the global health elite, backed by billionaire-backed NGOs and unelected technocrats.
• Digital health documents and cross-border data sharing will become standard. That’s code for global digital IDs — yes, the very same infrastructure behind jab mandates and border closures.

This is the final betrayal. This is the moment they shift us from a sovereign nation to a compliant colony of a global health regime.

And they think you won’t fight back.

They think you’ll roll over like you did in 2020, masked, tracked, jabbed, and silenced. They think you’ll obey like you did when churches were shuttered, small businesses destroyed, and dissenters dragged through courts like criminals.

But this time, we know better. This time, we’ve seen behind the curtain. We’ve felt the sting of medical tyranny. We’ve watched the wheels of “global governance” crush ordinary people, and we’re done.

What You Can Do to Resist the WHO

So here’s what you need to do. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Now.

1. Sign these key petitions. Add your name to the fight by signing the CitizenGO petition at citizengo.org/en-au/node/15863 and the Aligned Council of Australia petition at aurejectwho.com.au
2. Contact your federal MP and Senator today. Demand they oppose the IHR amendments. Demand they force a withdrawal. The deadline is 19 July. After that, it’s international law.
3. Hammer Mark Butler’s office, as he’s the Health Minister who signed us up. Flood him with emails and phone calls. Hold him accountable.
   Phone: (02) 6277 7220
   Email: minister.butler@health.gov.au
4. Share this article far and wide. Don’t wait for the mainstream media, as they’re bought and gagged. Telegram, X, Facebook, Signal, truth flyers in letterboxes… whatever it takes.
5. Prepare for the fight ahead. Because even if this deadline passes, the resistance must rise. We need a political reckoning. We need a referendum on globalism. We need men and women ready to take our country back.

This isn’t alarmism. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is happening. It’s written in ink, it’s buried in bureaucratese, and it’s being done behind your back.

If we don’t act, we hand the keys to Australia over to the WHO. We surrender our freedom, our future, and our God-given rights to a globalist cartel that doesn’t give a damn about us.

We cannot allow that.

Australia is not theirs to govern.

It is ours to defend.

Update: Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers

I just knew it would happen. A “fact-check” of my claims regarding the WHO’s International Health Regulations amendments is being conducted by a government-funded media organisation right now.

I opened my email inbox on Wednesday afternoon and there it was: an email from the government-funded Australian Associated Press’ fact-checking unit.

Hi George,

I’m getting in touch from AAP FactCheck.

We’re looking into your Facebook post claiming the government will hand over control of Australia’s health policy to the World Health Organization by approving the International Health Regulations amendments.

You also claim they are doing this without debate, and that it removes human rights protections from the text.

Are you able to provide your evidence to support these claims?

Thanks,

AAP FactCheck

For full disclosure, here’s my Facebook post:

So, out of that post, the AAP FactCheck only asked me to verify three things, namely:

1. My claim that “… the Albanese Government will hand control of Australia’s health policy to the World Health Organization…”;
2. My claim that this is happening “…without a vote, without debate…”; and
3. My claim that “They removed human rights protections from the text.”

Here’s my forensic response to AAP FactCheck:

Hello,

First of all, to ensure that I can address a defamation letter correctly, should you claim that I am lying, with whom am I communicating?

I abhor your fact-checking because it has been demonstrably false on several occasions.

In fact, your email to me contains falsities, namely that my Facebook post claimed the government was “approving the International Health Regulations amendments.” The process is one in which the amendments are accepted if they aren’t rejected, rather than having to be approved.

To your query, I stand by the following assertions you have brought into question and provide proof via the IHR amendments themselves:

1. My claim: “… the Albanese Government will hand control of Australia’s health policy to the World Health Organization…”

Evidence:

Under the revised International Health Regulations (IHR), the power flow changes in four big ways:

1) Global emergencies can be declared for us, even if nothing is happening here.
The new Article 12 states: “The Director-General shall determine … whether the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern…”

2) There is no requirement for that emergency to be inside Australia.
Once an emergency is declared, Canberra must follow WHO instructions or formally explain why it will not follow them. The latter is unlikely to occur due to international and domestic pressure for going against the advice of the WHO.
Articles 15 and 16 say countries must “take into account” the WHO’s temporary and standing recommendations, which can include “medical examinations, vaccination … contact tracing, isolation or quarantine, restrictions on travel, refusal of entry or departure…”

3) A new domestic enforcement hub becomes mandatory.
Article 4(1) tells every country to set up a “National IHR Authority” that “shall coordinate the implementation of these Regulations within the jurisdiction of the State Party.”

4) The package becomes law automatically unless Australia opts out in writing.
Articles 59-61 give every nation 12 months to reject the amendments. If no letter is sent, the text is binding, with no parliamentary vote required.

Put simply, once the WHO declares an emergency, Australia is already treaty-bound to comply or justify non-compliance. That hands real leverage over lockdowns, vaccine certificates, border controls, and more to Geneva.
Hence, taking “control of Australia’s health policy” is factually accurate.

2. My claim: “…without a vote, without debate…”

Evidence:

The amendments were adopted at the 77th World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024 “by consensus,” meaning there was no recorded vote even in the WHA.
Under Article 61 of the IHRs, Australia then had a window of opportunity to reject or reserve the amendments. No legislation or parliamentary motion has been introduced, let alone a debate or vote on the topic.
Hence, “without a vote, without debate” is factually accurate.

3. My claim: “They removed human rights protections from the text.”

Evidence:

The 2005 version of the IHR opened with a clear safeguard. Article 3(1) in the 2005 text read “…full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”
In the amendment, that clause disappears. The new wording reads “…shall … promote equity and solidarity…”
The explicit promise to uphold “dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” has been deleted and appears nowhere else in the revised Articles.
Hence, they “removed human rights protections from the text” is factually accurate.

I have thus proven that:
– The WHO can now trigger health policy obligations for Australia.
– Canberra agreed to this without a parliamentary vote.
– The once-clear human rights safeguard in the IHRs has been stripped out of the text.

If you’re going to run anything from me, I would ask that the above information in bold be run in full or not at all.

Regards,

George Christensen

___

Republished with thanks to Nation First. Image via Adobe.