This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
βAitchβ promoting the π
Final comments
[179] Research in the context of COVID-19 has shown that many who are βvaccine-hesitantβ are well
educated, work in the health care industry and have questions about how effective the vaccines are in
stopping transmission, whether they are safe to take during pregnancy, or if they affect fertility. 37 A far
safer and more democratic approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy, and therefore increasing voluntary
vaccination uptake, lies in better education, addressing specific and often legitimate concerns that people
may hold, and promoting genuine informed consent. It does not lie in censoring differing opinions or
removing rights and civil liberties that are fundamental in a democratic nation. It certainly does not lie in
the use of highly coercive, undemocratic and unethical mandates.
[180] The statements by politicians that those who are not vaccinated are a threat to public health and
should be βlocked out of societyβ and denied the ability to work are not measures to protect public health.
They are not about public health and not justified because they do not address the actual risk of COVID.
These measures can only be about punishing those who choose not to be vaccinated. If the purpose of the
PHOs is genuinely to reduce the spread of COVID, there is no basis for locking out people who do not
have COVID, which is easily established by a rapid antigen test. Conversely, a vaccinated person who
contracts COVID should be required to isolate until such time as they have recovered.
[181] Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across a whole profession or industry
regardless of the actual risk, fail the tests of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness. It is more than
the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis and cannot be justified on health grounds. It is a
lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should be soundly rejected by courts
when challenged.
[182] All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and
segregation in Australia. It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the anthesis
of our democratic way of life and everything we value.
10/1/21, 2:10 PM [2021] FWCFB 6015
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2021fwcfb6015.htm 40/42
[183] Australians should also vigorously oppose the ongoing censorship of any views that question the
current policies regarding COVID. Science is no longer science if it a person is not allowed to question
it.
[184] Finally, all Australians, including those who hold or are suspected of holding βanti-vaccination
sentimentsβ, are entitled to the protection of our laws, including the protections afforded by the Fair
Work Act. In this regard, one can only hope that the Majority Decision is recognised as an anomaly and
not followed by others.
[179] Research in the context of COVID-19 has shown that many who are βvaccine-hesitantβ are well
educated, work in the health care industry and have questions about how effective the vaccines are in
stopping transmission, whether they are safe to take during pregnancy, or if they affect fertility. 37 A far
safer and more democratic approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy, and therefore increasing voluntary
vaccination uptake, lies in better education, addressing specific and often legitimate concerns that people
may hold, and promoting genuine informed consent. It does not lie in censoring differing opinions or
removing rights and civil liberties that are fundamental in a democratic nation. It certainly does not lie in
the use of highly coercive, undemocratic and unethical mandates.
[180] The statements by politicians that those who are not vaccinated are a threat to public health and
should be βlocked out of societyβ and denied the ability to work are not measures to protect public health.
They are not about public health and not justified because they do not address the actual risk of COVID.
These measures can only be about punishing those who choose not to be vaccinated. If the purpose of the
PHOs is genuinely to reduce the spread of COVID, there is no basis for locking out people who do not
have COVID, which is easily established by a rapid antigen test. Conversely, a vaccinated person who
contracts COVID should be required to isolate until such time as they have recovered.
[181] Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across a whole profession or industry
regardless of the actual risk, fail the tests of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness. It is more than
the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis and cannot be justified on health grounds. It is a
lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should be soundly rejected by courts
when challenged.
[182] All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and
segregation in Australia. It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the anthesis
of our democratic way of life and everything we value.
10/1/21, 2:10 PM [2021] FWCFB 6015
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2021fwcfb6015.htm 40/42
[183] Australians should also vigorously oppose the ongoing censorship of any views that question the
current policies regarding COVID. Science is no longer science if it a person is not allowed to question
it.
[184] Finally, all Australians, including those who hold or are suspected of holding βanti-vaccination
sentimentsβ, are entitled to the protection of our laws, including the protections afforded by the Fair
Work Act. In this regard, one can only hope that the Majority Decision is recognised as an anomaly and
not followed by others.
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Healthcare worker -βI canβt watch whatβs happening and I need to know I tried something to stop itβ
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
At Dr Hilary Jones house. Weβre coming off you all!!
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Strange creatures with βtentaclesβ found in vials of MRNA vaccine