Australia Supreme Court Declares Mandates Unlawful

Here it is, a major decision by the Supreme Court of Australia has decided that the requirements for the administration of the COVID vaccination to Queensland police and ambulance workers are “unlawful” and rightfully so.

According to the Human Rights Act, Justice Glenn Martin determined that the directive that was given by the Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll in December 2021 to require all individuals to receive the COVID vaccination violated the law.

It was decided that a similar vaccination order for COVID-19 that had been issued by John Wakefield, who was the Director-General of Queensland Health at the time, was “of no consequence,” and the implementation of both mandates as well as any related disciplinary measures was prohibited.

Within the Queensland Police Service (QPS), Justice Martin said in his finding that the Police Commissioner “did not examine the human rights repercussions” before to issuing the Covid workplace vaccination mandate. This verdict was handed out on Tuesday, February 27.

Justice Martin stated that the Director-General had failed to “show that the direction he made constitutes a term of employment of the applicants,” although the Covid vaccination order that was issued to the staff of the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) was deemed to be within the bounds of the law.

The Commissioner and the Director-General were reprimanded by Justice Martin for their rigidity in the implementation of vaccination mandates, and according to Justice Martin, their actions were not adequately justified by the evidence.

Neither the Commissioner nor Dr. Wakefield paid a great deal of attention to the several potential answers that were available.

In the verdict, Justice Martin observed that each of the parties had been supplied with a proposal for mandatory vaccination, but there was very little in the way of well-developed critiques of alternative methods of lowering disease and infection.

In addition, the arguments that were provided by the Commissioner and the Director-General for the workplace vaccination mandates were “taken out of context” or “not supported by the evidence,” and the modeling that was relied upon by the Commissioner was, in fact, “nothing of the sort,” according to Justice Martin.

What a time to be alive to see the Australia Supreme Court declares mandates unlawful. Their karma is here and now I am patiently awaiting the United States to follow suit.

How bad is it?

Well, according to Wendy Bonyton, an associate law professor at Bond University, the ruling, which concluded three challenges brought by law firms Alexander Law and Sibley Lawyers, is just the “tip of the iceberg.”

“There are other challenges, based on similar grounds, similarly questioning the legitimacy of directives made during the pandemic,” Professor Bonyton said in an interview with the Australian.

It is interesting to go through this one because it is the first one to go through…There will be further instances of this kind in the future.

According to reports, Clive Palmer, an Australian billionaire and politician, paid between $2.5 and $3 million toward funding the cases that involved 74 police officers, civilian personnel, and paramedics. Palmer has stated that he is contemplating taking additional legal action as a result of the victory.

“We could look at the class action for the ambulance workers and the police workers who have been subjected to harassment by their colleagues at the police department on the direction of the government to try to drop this case,” he told the press outside of the Brisbane Supreme Court after the decision was handed down.

“We could look at the class action for the cases that have been brought against the government.”

Palmer paid respect to the police and hospital professionals for their “great courage” in defying the COVID-19 vaccination workplace orders. He condemned the government for its “coercion and bullying” and praised them for their efforts.

The House of Cards continues to fall as the Australia Supreme Court declares mandates unlawful.

Did you say, unlawful?

Human rights lawyer Peter Fam of Sydney law firm Maat’s Method hailed the Supreme Court ruling.

He told Dystopian Down Under that this ruling will push future employers and government authorities to properly consider human rights while implementing vaccine directives, at least in Queensland where the Human Rights Act requires them to.

Fam highlighted that Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have identical human rights laws, but other States and Territories do not.

Fam warned that the Court ruling includes an “ominous” caveat.

The Commissioner ignored human rights advice, thus they won. The Court also ruled that each instruction limited the workers’ rights to full, free, and informed consent under Section 17 of the Human Rights Act, but the limit was fair in all circumstances.

So, if the Commissioner could have shown she considered human rights counsel, her workplace vaccination recommendations would likely have been legal.

Fam stated in a Senate committee on February 1 that vaccine mandates and other aspects of Australia’s pandemic response breached human rights, warranting a Covid Royal Commission.

In my personal life, I can relate to all of this. There will be a price to pay for the crimes against humanity inflicted upon us for the sake of “health.“

In conclusion the Australia Supreme Court declares mandates unlawful

The Supreme Court verdict establishes that workplace directives must take human rights into account which they never did. It is illegal to mandate a medical experiment on the masses due to the Nuremberg Code.

Before this verdict, Australian courts sided with the government and employers who enforced vaccine obligations on employees.

Kassam V Hazzard (2021) challenged NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard’s vaccine mandates and movement limitations.

Tony Nikolic, of Sydney law firm Ashley, Francina, Leonard & Associates, challenged public health orders, but Justice Beech-Jones upheld them.

Nikolic told Dystopian Down Under, “The Queensland verdict is a vindication of human rights and the importance human rights enjoy in Australian jurisprudence.”

“Unfortunately, the NSW Supreme Court in Kassam v Hazard (2021) assumed a restrictive perspective on human rights safeguards under the common law,” stressed Nikolic, noting that NSW has no bill of rights or Human Rights Act, unlike Queensland.

“When former Health Minister Greg Hunt said this was the world’s largest clinical trial, the Courts should have protected human rights. The verdict emphasizes the necessity for an Australian Human Rights Act or Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court ruling follows a January South Australian court ruling ordering the Department of Child Protection to compensate a youth worker who developed pericarditis after receiving a Covid booster under a workplace vaccination directive.