Members of the European Parliament demand to know how the EU is defining misinfo and disinfo since it is negotiating the IHRs and treaty which include this language
Yet there is no definition in international law or of what these words mean and it is questionable whether 'countering' them is compatible with existing law
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2024-001044_EN.html
‘Misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ in the pandemic treaty
9.4.2024
Priority question for written answer P-001044/2024
to the Commission
Rule 138
Robert Roos (ECR), Angel Dzhambazki (ECR), Tom Vandendriessche (ID), Mislav Kolakušić (NI), Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI), Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR), Francesca Donato (NI), Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR), Hermann Tertsch (ECR)
The Commission is negotiating an international agreement on ‘pandemic preparedness and response’ with WHO countries.
In the draft text as amended by the EU drafting suggestions[1] dated 27 February 2024, Article 18 on communication and public awareness relies on the concepts of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’.
Signatory countries should act ‘with the aim of countering’ (Article 18(1)) and ‘cooperate in preventing’ (Article 18(4)) misinformation or disinformation, with the Commission suggesting an amendment to oblige countries ‘to develop effective tools to identify and counteract misinformation and disinformation’ (Article 18(4)).
However, neither the draft agreement nor international law provide a definition of ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’.
1.Can the Commission define these concepts and explain how they should be understood, in the Commission’s view, taking into account the requirement to comply with the principle of legal certainty, which is an essential component of the rule of law principle and according to which the law must be certain, foreseeable and easy to understand?
2.In the Commission’s view, do the proposed obligations under Articles 18(1) and 18(4) entail restricting citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of expression, and if so, are these restrictions compatible with the applicable law, including the case law of the European Court of Human Rights?
Supporter[2]
Submitted:9.4.2024
[1] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2024/EU%20drafting%20suggestions%20Refined%20text%20proposals.pdf
[2] This question is supported by a Member other than the authors: Emmanouil Fragkos(ECR)
Last updated: 15 April 2024
As a historical matter, the right to speak against government policy had a legitimate purpose, even if some government authorities sought to suppress such speech as “misinformation.” That purpose was to root out corruption (“bad ministers.”) This power to criticize policy and actors is essential to maintaining good government.
Totalitarian governments always suppress criticism of their regime. This is a hallmark of such regimes.
The globalists want to root out criticism because they don’t want to root out the corruption upon which their schemes rely, to the detriment of the people they wish to fleece.
This is why they installed Catherine Maher, a WEF acolyte, as the new CEO of NPR.
That's an excellent and key question to ask. Of course, we know the real, hidden answer: mis- and disinformation is anything that exposes or opposes globalist plans, agendas and narratives, or any truth that conflicts with globalist agendas, or anything globalists don't like.