Connect with us

COVID-19

Australian court rules COVID jab mandate for first responders violated Human Rights Act

Published

10 months ago

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Mining billionaire Clive Palmer, founder of the United Australia Party, funded the action and said afterwards that he was willing to back other class actions by affected workers. He called for the presidents and executives of the Queensland Police and Ambulance unions to “do the honourable thing and resign from their roles

In another blow to the legitimacy of Australian governments’ anti-COVID-19 measures, among the most severe in the world, a judge in the Queensland Supreme Court has ruled that the COVID shot mandates for police and ambulance staff were unlawful.

The judge, Glenn Martin, found that there was a breach under the Human Rights Act: specifically the right not to be subjected to non-consensual medical treatment. He ruled there was a failure “to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision,” rendering the mandate unlawful.

The judge ordered that the police commissioner no longer take steps to enforce the mandates or continue any disciplinary proceedings. He ordered that the director general of Queensland Health also be restrained from any enforcement of the vaccine direction, and that no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against those applicants.

READ: South Australian court rules employers who mandated COVID jabs can be held liable for injuries

Although on the face of it the decision has potentially far reaching consequences for the many Australian workers who refused to comply with mandates, the finding was based on a technicality, rather than a matter of ethical or legal principle.

Health Minister Shannon Fentiman said the ruling was made “in relation to how the directives were made, not the directives themselves.” She said the judge found that limiting people’s human rights in having healthcare imposed upon them without consent was “justified because of the pandemic.”

It indicates that Australian judges continue to work on the basis that COVID-19 was a deadly pandemic, which justified suppressing individuals’ right to make decisions about their own health. Contrary to that assumption, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which compiles its records from death certificates, found that 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of deaths from respiratory diseases since records have been kept.

So where was the pandemic? The answer is in computer modelling that turned out to be totally wrong. An example of this irresponsible use of modelling, rather than actual evidence, was referenced in the case. The police service claimed that “modelling” indicated that Queensland Police Service (QPS) personnel would have over two million contacts with the community every year. The judge criticized this, noting that it was for 2019/20 and “did not provide any predictions of the effect of the pandemic on the QPS.” Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll resigned the day before the decision was handed down.

All Australian state governments relied on deeply flawed modelling, especially the former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews.

  1. The PCR test used to identify COVID “cases” was not suitable as a diagnostic tool, as the inventor Kary Mullis noted.
  2. Because the specifics of the Sars-CoV-2 virus were not available in the early stages due to Chinese reluctance to provide details, the PCR test was based on an old flu virus. The FDA admitted that the test was developed not with actual samples of COVID-19, but with what appears to be genetic material from a common cold virus. Tellingly, in 2019 the ABS recorded 4,124 deaths from flu. In 2021 it recorded only two.
  3. According to the Worldometer, 80 percent of people in Australia who tested positive to COVID-19 experienced no symptoms. This meant either that the test was flawed or their immune systems had dealt with it.
  4. Mortality from respiratory disease in the period when there was supposed to be a pandemic was unusually low. According to the ABS deaths from COVID-19 in 2020-21 were under 2,000 – far lower than the 4,124 in 2019 from flu.
  5. The epidemiological modelling was based on “cases,” following positive testing from the PCR or lateral flow tests. This resulted in an absurdly inflated picture of the risks.

Even if it is accepted that these were understandable mistakes, the fact remains that the Australian authorities got it completely wrong; that should have legal implications for the people who lost their livelihoods. Courts, after all, typically focus on evidence, not speculation, even when that guessing comes from complex computer modelling.

Mining billionaire Clive Palmer, founder of the United Australia Party, funded the action and said afterwards that he was willing to back other class actions by affected workers. He called for the presidents and executives of the Queensland Police and Ambulance unions to “do the honourable thing and resign from their roles in supporting the decisions to have officers vaccinate against their wishes.”

If there is to be widespread justice, however, it would seem to be necessary to go beyond just the wording of the vaccine mandate directives and expose how wrong the authorities were when they imposed savage restrictions on the Australian work force and community.

Until judges realise that their assumptions about the “pandemic” are wrong they will continue to put a false idea of the common good above respect for individual rights.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 16 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 16 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 17 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X