Recent posts

#81

Vaccine Coercion / Re: Constitutionally Inoculate...

Last post by gonzo - 26 Jul 21, 07:50:11

https://goodsauce.news/pellowe-talk-55/

The second half of this interview is with another law  professor who does not agree that sect51 is relevant for states.

#82

Vaccine Coercion / Archiving Web Pages

Last post by Neo - 25 Jul 21, 09:16:34

As information on the web gets written then published ... then mysteriously re-written (make no mistake, I have witnessed this happening on a private forum too) it's handy to be able to archive good webpages on demand. This site does just that ...
https://archive.ph

And you can find the archived copy by searching for the original URL on this site, Here's an example...
https://archive.ph/https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-law/2021/07/constitutionally-inoculated-to-resist-coercion/

All the best.
Neo

#83

Vaccine Coercion / Re: Risk/Benefit of mandatory ...

Last post by Excogitatoris - 25 Jul 21, 08:50:24

I posted it to be shared and put some common sense perspective to the fear driven policies.


An experienced statistician and former governmental executive has done a similar analysis on the costs of lockdowns in the Netherlands: It costs 3 to 5 times more quality live-years than it saves. An excellent video about this is to be found via this LINK.
It is in Dutch though. (I asked them to put on English subtitles)  It also goes into how it comes that this 'Utilism' principle is ignored due to the 'Rescue' principle.

#84

Vaccine Coercion / Re: The DELTA Scariant

Last post by Neo - 25 Jul 21, 08:48:43

Love it ... Brilliant!

[Article back-up]

#85

Vaccine Coercion / Constitutionally Inoculated to...

Last post by Neo - 25 Jul 21, 08:46:08

24th July 2021 Author: Dr Augusto Zimmermann is Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education, and Professor of Law (Adjunct) at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney campus. Dr Zimmermann was chair and professor of constitutional law at Murdoch University from 2007 to 2017. He is also a former Law Reform Commissioner in WA (2012-2017) and President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA). https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-law/2021/07/constitutionally-inoculated-to-resist-coercion/

Article back-up

#86

Vaccine Coercion / Re: Risk/Benefit of mandatory ...

Last post by Neo - 25 Jul 21, 08:33:20

This document is pure genius!!... You should be very proud of yourself for putting this together. 

Just confirming that this is the finished report (no further analysis to add) and that it's Ok to share this document around with like-minded people?

#87

Vaccine Coercion / Re: FairWork process for those...

Last post by gonzo - 23 Jul 21, 18:26:17

I've started emailing more lawyers. This is the email I'm sending out. I want bites at least. Any suggestions on how to improve this would be greatly appreciated. I do tend to repeat myself so if you find such, please let me know. I'm emailing law firms that probably charge 1000 an hour.. my hope is that I may get some free legal advice without paying a cent. Hints as to whether I'm on target, etc.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I've recently been fired for refusing to sign a consent form which asked me to give "completely voluntary" consent to vaccines. It's my understanding that informed consent requires a voluntary decision free from coercive influence. I believe my right to free and informed consent has been violated and that such coercive measures make a mockery of what it means to give informed consent.

My employer referred to SA's emergency management act relating to aged care facilities. My employer is of the opinion that I failed to comply with a reasonable and lawful directive.

I have a problem with the concept of consent under clearly coercive forces. I've maintained that I don't believe it possible to give valid consent under the circumstances and therefore can't comply with the demand of my employer.

I'm curious as to whether such emergency directives are legally valid. Section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution forbids "any form of civil conscription" in respect to medical and dental services. Justice Kirby (Wong vs Commonwealth of Australia) states:

"However, the prohibition on "any form of civil conscription" is designed to protect patients from having the supply of "medical and dental services", otherwise than by private contract, forced upon them without their consent." (127)

"A rare constitutional guarantee:  Because of its character as a guarantee or protection, both for the healthcare professionals identified and for the patients affected by the provision of their services, the exclusion of any form of "civil conscription" must be seen as one of the rare instances of an individual guarantee and protection spelt out in the Australian Constitution" (128)

If civil conscription extends to myself, the Constitution supersedes state directives.

I have issue with the implications of such demands in respect also to my privacy rights under the Privacy Act 1998. I also question the validity of such directives considering the Biosecurity Act.

I have limited time to launch a claim with FairWork. I wish to challenge my termination.

Regards,

Thomas Webb

#88

Vaccine Coercion / Re: Being sacked for not havin...

Last post by gonzo - 23 Jul 21, 14:25:50

It's a gradual erosion of rights. People don't protest all at once because it doesn't initially directly effect them. I expect we won't be able to go shopping or to restaurants without a vaccine pass by Christmas.

#89

Vaccine Coercion / Re: The most intense Propagand...

Last post by gonzo - 23 Jul 21, 14:24:20

I'm not sure if you've seen the morning TV show clips, but the propaganda has intensified since. They're talking about compulsory vaccines now for all citizens openly.

#90

Vaccine Coercion / Re: FairWork process for those...

Last post by gonzo - 23 Jul 21, 13:47:03

I could pull arguments from my reply to their "show cause" letter.

Perhaps some from:

6.   Your demand violates the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995
7.   Your expectation that I sign a consent form saying that I agree the vaccine is "completely voluntary" is completely unreasonable.
8.   Your expectation that I give consent (a voluntary agreement free from coercion) to something which is not voluntary is completely unreasonable/impossible.
9.   Your demand violates Xxxxxxxx's definition of informed consent as defined in Informed Consent.docx:
"Consent must be freely given; not obtained by: Fraud, force, undue influence"
Under definitions:
"Informed Consent: Voluntary agreement given by a person or a responsible proxy (e.g., a parent) for participation in a study, immunization program, or treatment regimen, after being informed of the purpose, methods, procedures, benefits, and risks. The essential criteria of informed consent are that the subject has both knowledge and comprehension, that consent is freely given without duress or undue influence, and that the right of withdrawal from the entity at any time is clearly communicated to the subject."
10.   Your demand runs contrary to  the Australian Immunisation Handbook (See pictured above- consent form Xxxxxxxx required me to sign), "For consent to be legally valid... It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation." 
11.   Your demand violates the UN's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights which states: "Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice."
12.   The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care states:
"Informed consent is a person's decision, given voluntarily, to agree to a healthcare treatment, procedure or other intervention that is made" . Your demand removes the possibility to give informed consent.
13.   AHPRA's "Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia" states:
"Informed consent is a person's voluntary decision about medical care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved" . Your demand removes the possibility of being able to give informed consent.
14.   Your demand is contrary to SA Health's Consent to Medical Treatment and Health Care Policy Guideline (4.1.2): "For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and clear, and the patient consenting must have decision-making capacity. These terms are explained below. Voluntary: the decision to consent or not consent to treatment must not be made due to pressure or coercion."