WHO instructs our Government?

kgtoh via istock

Does Our Government Serve Us, The Irish People, Or does it serve and take instruction from The WEF/EU/UN/WHO Cabal And Their Attempt To Impose Global Technocratic Tyranny?

In the following conversation Sarah Haboubi and barrister Una Mc Gurk SC ask the question: Are our elected representatives serving us, Irish people, or are they serving the doctrine of technocracy as promoted by the WEF?

In the featured video below they clearly and unemotionally describe the absolute absurdity of Ireland’s proposed hate speech legislation.

They show that, by proposing this legislation, our government is slavishly kowtowing to the demands of the World Economic Forum and the European Union while ignoring the wishes of the significant majority – 73% – of Irish respondents to the government consultation who opposed it. What is our taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s remit as a WEF young global leader? His actions clearly demonstrate his accountability to both the WEF and the EU over and above the Irish people who elected him and the Irish government to represent them.

The clear and unhidden agenda of the WEF, EU, UN and the WHO is a technocratic one–world government. For an introduction to the concept of technocracy see here.

The tragic and savage irony, as Sarah and Una point out, is that the Malthusian genocidal, population-reductionist policies that were responsible for the huge death toll in The Great Irish Famine are the same policies which our government is now promoting on behalf of the proponents of technocratic one-world government. For more on Malthus and Malthusian inspired policies see here and here. For more on the links between the Great Reset and Ireland’s Great Famine see the conversations between Sarah Haboubi and Matthew Ehret here and here.

In this conversation, Una Mc Gurk SC points out that real empowerment of people threatens the existence of Ireland’s approximately 36,000 NGOs and that many policies such as hate speech legislation and other recent government policy initiatives are neither coming from the grassroots, nor are they mandated but are in fact driven by NGOs.

The point is also made that TDs and Senators have said that they have never before experienced the amount of pushback from the public against proposed legislation.

Una also outlines her experiences following her appearance at a rally in August 2020 where she spoke about masks and the PCR test which was used to justify the lockdowns. Two ministers publicly tweeted about her the day after the rally and the then minister for justice, Helen McEntee, publicly called for an urgent report from the chairperson of IPAT (International Protection Appeals Tribunal) of which Una was a member at the time. In early 2021 the Department of Justice stated that she will no longer sit on the tribunal, following the expiration of her contract. The bizarre irony of how she was treated was made clear by Una towards the end of the conversation when she said:

In my role as a chair in IPAT, I frequently had to deal with claims by asylum seekers stating that their fundamental rights and freedoms were not being honoured or not respected in their country of origin which is why they were fleeing to Ireland, […] that their right to freedom of expression was not being honoured and that they were being persecuted by the authorities. […] I, as an independent adjudicator, have had on numerous occasions to adjudicate on those issues in making recommendations as to whether or not somebody was entitled to refugee status and, here I was in my own country, exercising my right to freedom of expression and I was vilified, I was defamed, I was canceled. There was a media frenzy whipped up in relation to me in order to cancel me and, in many ways, that originated with two senior government ministers tweeting against me and the then taoiseach, on the Claire Byrne show, saying that he felt it was inappropriate that I was speaking at that rally. So they deflected, this was just a way of deflecting from the issues that I spoke about which would have challenged the government narrative at the time. […] I challenged the government narrative and it was made clear to me that I, as a senior counsel, was not allowed to exercise my right to freedom of expression in relation to these issues but, bizarrely, I was supposed to adjudicate upon [them] with regard to people appearing before me.

The following is a forensic analysis and examination of the hate speech legislation, its origins & purpose and the reaction of government to one citizen, Una Mc Gurk SC, who dared to express opinions which are contrary to the views and intentions of the government.