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.
Absolutely. I came to the same conclusion….telling them what not to do next time. I tried to read the 116 page decision. The usual word salad. But also, it was a judicial review, not an examination of the facts. Very legalistic and unfortunately I don’t see this as a precedent for moving the narrative forward. Still we live in hope and every little victory helps.
I think the upside is that in states with human rights provisions, the powers that be will have to, at a minimum, go through the motions of considering human rights implications. They didn’t even bother to do that with the Covid vax mandates. So the upside is they have to put in a bit more effort if they want to trample human rights next time. Otherwise I agree, it’s not the big win people are perhaps thinking it is.
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!
If an emergency officer gives a direction to a person under section 184(1)(c) to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated, an emergency officer or police officer may use reasonable force to ensure that the direction is complied with, including, if necessary —
(a) to apprehend and detain the person to whom the direction applies (the relevant person) and take the relevant person to a place where the person is required to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated in accordance with the direction; and
(b) to detain the relevant person at the place where he or she is required to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated in accordance with the direction; and
(c) to restrain the relevant person —
(i) to enable a medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment to be carried out; or
(ii) to enable the relevant person to be vaccinated;
and
(d) to remove anything (including underwear) that the relevant person is wearing, if —
(i) the removal of the thing is reasonably necessary to enable a medical examination or medical treatment to be carried out or, as the case requires, to enable the person to be vaccinated; and
(ii) the relevant person is given a reasonable opportunity to remove the thing himself or herself, and refuses or fails to do so.
Yes I just was unsure what link you're drawing between this Emergency legislation and the QLD Human Rights Act? I don't see any connection. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have a Human Rights Act in WA.
I'm just still angry that this can be a Legal Act, and remain unchallenged.
If a work mandate can be unlawful, then surely and arrest and forced injection should be doubly unlawful?
The "Tip of the Iceberg" comment in the article had me wonder if this was one of those other cases. Sect 15 is very extreme, dystopian even..............
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?
17 Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment
A person must not be—
(a) subjected to torture; or
(b) treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading
way; or
(c) subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or
treatment without the person’s full, free and informed
consent.
So, presumably, a limitation on clause 17(c) must have been imposed for some reason, or perhaps the Commissioner of Police in haste did not consult the act (which was the reason for the judgement). But, had the Act in fact been properly consulted, ought not mandatory vaccination - as instituted in Queensland - have been clearly recognised as illegal? (That is, not just the Commissioners's oversight of the Act, but what they would have found had they consulted the Act properly).
I don't know. Most of the people I ask say they got vaccinated so they could work. I ask everyone. You could also clearly see numbers go up when mandates were announced, and then again right before they came into effect.
Well that makes a lot of sense! UWA is my alma mater and I can totally imagine most of your colleagues would have voluntarily rolled up to do the right thing...
Doesn't this tell you about the kind of person a jabbed 'judge' is? Those who did not see the Red Flag of exempting their own (the government employed) badly lacks common sense. I shudder to think that these type people sit in judgement of the common man.
Courage in some could quickly be declared "misinformation" and "hate speech" and other meaningless unlawful terms.
It is clear that we can't trust the vast bulk of our judiciary, who will do what their masters tell them, rather than what the law and common sense dictate.
Thanks for the good summary, Rebekah.
(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?)
I see what you did there 😉
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.
Absolutely. I came to the same conclusion….telling them what not to do next time. I tried to read the 116 page decision. The usual word salad. But also, it was a judicial review, not an examination of the facts. Very legalistic and unfortunately I don’t see this as a precedent for moving the narrative forward. Still we live in hope and every little victory helps.
I think the upside is that in states with human rights provisions, the powers that be will have to, at a minimum, go through the motions of considering human rights implications. They didn’t even bother to do that with the Covid vax mandates. So the upside is they have to put in a bit more effort if they want to trample human rights next time. Otherwise I agree, it’s not the big win people are perhaps thinking it is.
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?
I can’t see any link. I’m not sure what you mean?
The really really totalitarian updated part:
Sections 185 of the updated WA Health Act.
If an emergency officer gives a direction to a person under section 184(1)(c) to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated, an emergency officer or police officer may use reasonable force to ensure that the direction is complied with, including, if necessary —
(a) to apprehend and detain the person to whom the direction applies (the relevant person) and take the relevant person to a place where the person is required to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated in accordance with the direction; and
(b) to detain the relevant person at the place where he or she is required to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated in accordance with the direction; and
(c) to restrain the relevant person —
(i) to enable a medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment to be carried out; or
(ii) to enable the relevant person to be vaccinated;
and
(d) to remove anything (including underwear) that the relevant person is wearing, if —
(i) the removal of the thing is reasonably necessary to enable a medical examination or medical treatment to be carried out or, as the case requires, to enable the person to be vaccinated; and
(ii) the relevant person is given a reasonable opportunity to remove the thing himself or herself, and refuses or fails to do so.
Yes I just was unsure what link you're drawing between this Emergency legislation and the QLD Human Rights Act? I don't see any connection. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have a Human Rights Act in WA.
I'm just still angry that this can be a Legal Act, and remain unchallenged.
If a work mandate can be unlawful, then surely and arrest and forced injection should be doubly unlawful?
The "Tip of the Iceberg" comment in the article had me wonder if this was one of those other cases. Sect 15 is very extreme, dystopian even..............
I think lay people (including myself) have difficulty accepting that laws are often unfair and illogical.
This Supreme Court decision is case in point. The government lost on a procedural technicality, not on principle.
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?
Peter Fam would probably have a good answer to this.
Indeed. Hopefully someone will draw his attention to it.
As a non-lawyer, I notice that the current version of the Queensland Human Rights Act (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/act-2019-005 ) does in fact explicitly draw attention to the following rights (thus rendering my comment incorrect):
17 Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment
A person must not be—
(a) subjected to torture; or
(b) treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading
way; or
(c) subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or
treatment without the person’s full, free and informed
consent.
So, presumably, a limitation on clause 17(c) must have been imposed for some reason, or perhaps the Commissioner of Police in haste did not consult the act (which was the reason for the judgement). But, had the Act in fact been properly consulted, ought not mandatory vaccination - as instituted in Queensland - have been clearly recognised as illegal? (That is, not just the Commissioners's oversight of the Act, but what they would have found had they consulted the Act properly).
Makes it pretty clear why I'm not a lawyer ...
Yes the judge said the mandates limited 17c but that this was proportional and therefore fine (paraphrasing obvs).
I didn’t think that the Nuremberg Code was intended to be proportional. I still don’t.
Thanks for this excellent summary, strange how it was not on ABC news???
It was! https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103517798
Wow thank RB... not bad coverage, usual bias but at least they did not ignore it completely!
Weren't judges exempt as were all politicians?
I don't know. Most of the people I ask say they got vaccinated so they could work. I ask everyone. You could also clearly see numbers go up when mandates were announced, and then again right before they came into effect.
Well that makes a lot of sense! UWA is my alma mater and I can totally imagine most of your colleagues would have voluntarily rolled up to do the right thing...
Doesn't this tell you about the kind of person a jabbed 'judge' is? Those who did not see the Red Flag of exempting their own (the government employed) badly lacks common sense. I shudder to think that these type people sit in judgement of the common man.
Yes I think of it like drip, drip, drip...
Courage in some could quickly be declared "misinformation" and "hate speech" and other meaningless unlawful terms.
It is clear that we can't trust the vast bulk of our judiciary, who will do what their masters tell them, rather than what the law and common sense dictate.