While this finding isn't quite the comprehensive victory we had hoped (and that it should have been), it is a step in the right direction. As you mentioned, earlier court findings (and Fair Work Commission decisions) were almost exclusively consistent with ridiculous government covid-response policy; however, slowly the judiciary seem to be rediscovering their courage. I'm optimistic that this will continue over the coming months and years. Thank you for another great overview, Rebekah.
It’s not gonna be easy to get “big-brained” fully-jibby jabbed judges to make judgements that entail recognition of their own gullible, gutless submission to the propaganda and fascism.
Thanks for the summary Rebekah very much appreciate it. I really don't see anything to celebrate in the judgement. Had the Commissioner and Director considered human rights the directlections would have been upheld.
"Fentiman emphasised that the ruling did not find mandatory Covid vaccinations contrary to human rights, but rather that the directions had been issued unlawfully.”
So whats to stop them next time saying “Yeah, well we considered your human rights and we have decided, under the circumstances, to ignore them. Now get the shot!!”
I dont see this ruling as having safeguarded our personal sovereignty but rather provided a game plan for the government on what not to do next time.
I would love to think this decision will lead to the abolition of vaccine mandates in the future, however the cynic in me says that the gumment(s) will change the rules to ensure they are in the clear!
Maybe the most surprising part of this case is the revelation that Queensland has a Human Rights Act which fails to address the right to informed consent for medical procedures. Given Australia’s acceptance of the Nuremberg Code, we might have expected this to be covered explicitly in the Act. Does anyone know why it wasn’t?
While this finding isn't quite the comprehensive victory we had hoped (and that it should have been), it is a step in the right direction. As you mentioned, earlier court findings (and Fair Work Commission decisions) were almost exclusively consistent with ridiculous government covid-response policy; however, slowly the judiciary seem to be rediscovering their courage. I'm optimistic that this will continue over the coming months and years. Thank you for another great overview, Rebekah.
Thanks for the good summary, Rebekah.
It’s not gonna be easy to get “big-brained” fully-jibby jabbed judges to make judgements that entail recognition of their own gullible, gutless submission to the propaganda and fascism.
(Law) h'uh
Yeah!
(What is it good for?)
Absolutely (nothin) uh-huh, uh-huh
(Law) h'uh
Yeah!
(What is it good for?)
Absolutely (nothin')
Say it again, y'all
Ooh Law, I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
Law means tears, to thousands of mother's eyes
I said, Law (h'uh)
Good God, y'all!
(What is it good for?)
Thanks for the summary Rebekah very much appreciate it. I really don't see anything to celebrate in the judgement. Had the Commissioner and Director considered human rights the directlections would have been upheld.
"Fentiman emphasised that the ruling did not find mandatory Covid vaccinations contrary to human rights, but rather that the directions had been issued unlawfully.”
So whats to stop them next time saying “Yeah, well we considered your human rights and we have decided, under the circumstances, to ignore them. Now get the shot!!”
I dont see this ruling as having safeguarded our personal sovereignty but rather provided a game plan for the government on what not to do next time.
I would love to think this decision will lead to the abolition of vaccine mandates in the future, however the cynic in me says that the gumment(s) will change the rules to ensure they are in the clear!
So how does this decision apply in WA to the Health Act revisions whereby a person can be:
Detained, restrained and forcefully injected? I would imagine that to be as equally invalidated?
Maybe the most surprising part of this case is the revelation that Queensland has a Human Rights Act which fails to address the right to informed consent for medical procedures. Given Australia’s acceptance of the Nuremberg Code, we might have expected this to be covered explicitly in the Act. Does anyone know why it wasn’t?
Thanks for this excellent summary, strange how it was not on ABC news???