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

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.

The PCR test used to identify COVID “cases” was not suitable as a diagnostic tool, as the inventor Kary Mullis noted.
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.
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.
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.
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:#AustralianCovidVaccineMandate #ClivePalmer #DavidJames #LifeSiteNews #QueenslandSupremeCourt

Up Next

Trudeau gov’t appeals federal court ruling that Emergencies Act use was ‘not justified’

Don't Miss

Rather than studying reasons for excess deaths, UK government changes how it counts them

Todayville

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

Liberals, globalists flip out after Trump orders USAID freeze

Business / 2 hours ago

Trudeau Liberals pledge $41.5 million for over 100 pro-2SLGBTQI+ projects

Economy / 2 hours ago

Human population set to decline for the first time since the Black Death

COVID-19

Trudeau government back in court to appeal ruling against its use of the Emergencies Act

Published on February 4, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

“Legal thresholds do not bend, much less break, in exigent circumstances. We are putting this and future governments on notice: even in times of crisis, no government is above the law”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is again in court to claim its use of the Emergencies Act to stop the 2022 Freedom Convoy was warranted, in appeal of a ruling from last year which found its use of the act was unjustified.

Today, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) noted in a press release that it is before the Federal Court of Appeal “to defend its historic victory for the rule of law.”

“While the extraordinary powers granted to the federal government through the Emergencies Act are necessary in extreme circumstances, they also threaten the rule of law and our democracy,” said Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, who serves as the Director of the Fundamental Freedoms program at the CCLA.

McNicoll said that the CCLA will be urging the “Federal Court of Appeal to reject the federal government’s attempt to relax the thresholds necessary for invoking the  Act’s extraordinary powers.”

“Legal thresholds do not bend, much less break, in exigent circumstances. We are putting this and future governments on notice: even in times of crisis, no government is above the law,” concluded McNicoll.

In January of 2024, Canada’s Federal Court announced that the use of the EA by the Trudeau government in early 2022 to shut down Freedom Convoy, which was calling for an end to COVID mandates, was a direct violation of the nation’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thus was “not justified” and “infringed” on the rights of protesters.

The January 2024 decision by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley saw the judge write, “Having found that the infringements of Charter sections 2(b) and 8 were not minimally impairing, I find that they were not justified under section 1.”

Shortly after the court ruling, the Trudeau government announced that it would appeal Mosley’s ruling, claiming the federal court “erred in fact and law in declaring that the Regulations infringed subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Notably, in the Federal Court of Appeal, where the case is now being heard, 10 out of the 15 judges were appointed by Trudeau.    

The CCLA said that the government’s use of the EA “which had never been invoked before in Canada,” allowed the federal government to “enact wide-reaching orders without going through the ordinary democratic process—but only once stringent legal thresholds are met.”

In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Trudeau’s government enacted the EA on February 14, 2022.

During the clear-out of protesters after the EA was put in place, one protester, an elderly lady, was trampled by a police horse, and one conservative female reporter was beaten by police and shot with a tear gas canister.

Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23.

In the lead-up to the protest, Trudeau had disparaged unvaccinated Canadians, saying those opposing his measures were of a “small, fringe minority” who hold “unacceptable views” and do not “represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other.”     

In another Freedom Convoy court battle, protest leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber underwent a year-long criminal trial which concluded last September.

Both Lich and Barber will have their verdicts announced on March 12, 2025, as LifeSiteNews has reported.

Alberta

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to consider halting COVID vaccines for healthy children

Published on February 1, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she will consider the findings of a report she commissioned that called for halting COVID shots for healthy children and teenagers, admitting there are questions about the “efficacy” of the jab in kids.

“I was pleased to see that we had a broad cross-section of doctors able to look at our previous COVID response, identify processes that were in place, identify things that may have gone wrong,” Smith said [24:50 min mark] while speaking to reporters on January 29.

Smith was responding to a question in response to the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force’s “COVID Pandemic Response” 269-page final report released last week.

She said she is looking to “identify things that are now under question, like the efficacy of masks and the efficacy of this vaccine in children.”

Smith added that her government is “going to take a look at” the report’s findings and “obviously we’ll, we’ll make some decisions about whether to move forward on any of the recommendations.”

The report was commissioned by Smtih last year, giving the task force a sweeping mandate to investigate her predecessor’s COVID-era mandates and policies.

The task force’s final report was released last week. It recommended halting “the use of COVID-19 vaccines without full disclosure of their potential risks” as well as outright ending their use “for healthy children and teenagers as other jurisdictions have done,” mentioning countries like “Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the U.K.”

Among the recommendations of the task force was the call to “(f)urther research to establish the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary before widespread use in adults and children,” the establishment of “a website and/or call-in center for the vaccine injured in Alberta” as well as establishing a “mechanism for opting out of federal health policy until provincial due process has been satisfied.”

The report also noted that “(c)hildren and teenagers have a very low risk of serious illness from COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to halt transmission and there is a lack of reliable data showing that the vaccines protect children from severe COVID-19.”

Smith: Doctors’ right to ‘speak their mind’ must be protected

While answering reporters’ questions on January 29, Smith also said the doctors in the province need to be able to “speak their minds without punishment from their colleges.”

“I think that’s going to be important too, otherwise, politicians only bad decisions,” she noted.

The report touched on how many doctors in Alberta who gave opposing views to the mainstream narrative regarding COVID jabs, masks, and the use of alternatives to treat the virus were wrongly vilified.

Smith mentioned that the point of the report was to find out what went wrong during COVID and to not repeat the same mistakes should there be another pandemic.

LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of the experimental COVID mRNA jabs that include heart damage and blood clots.

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children and all have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies.

After becoming premier in late 2022, Smith promptly fired the province’s top doctor, Deena Hinshaw, and the entire AHS board of directors, all of whom oversaw the implementation of COVID mandates.

Under predecessor Jason Kenney, thousands of nurses, doctors, and other healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” group of people in her lifetime.