I hate to say that told you so, but Ian Wilson LL. B told you so! He predicted that the courts here in Australia, as in the US, would uphold the Covid vaccine mandates, and they have, so far. All of the arguments that readers of this debate will be familiar with were advanced, and all rejected, including issues of coercion and right to bodily autonomy, and arguably not without reason. There are always reasons. I presume from reports, but are uncertain, that concerns about insufficient long-term data on Covid-19 vaccine safety and side effects, were dismissed as well, and I am not sure how much evidence was discussed and what expert evidence testimony occurred. That is what I would have got my $10,000 an hour lawyer to base my case upon, calling in every scientific critic in the world via Zoom, if permitted. But, if I could afford such a lawyer, I would not be in court in the first place, but somewhere other than Australia, drinking one of those exotic drinks with fruit falling out of it.
It is possible if in the future, 90 percent of the vaccinated population perishes from the vaccines, in the most extreme (low probability) scenario, that courts across the West may think differently, but then I expect that most judges would not be making learned decisions then, and the rule of law, and society would have ended. Interestingly it would then be the rule of warlords, who may make decisions a little differently! Covid might even become some new type of pagan god, worshipped in strange ceremonies involving masks!
Anyway, there you go. Expect the same from the courts right up to the High Court of Australia, Ian Wilson told us. It seems that the court system is always held out by desperate people as the last chance for abstract “justice,” as well represented in the iconic Australian movie, The Castle, itself totally legally flawed, but courts, as far as Ian has argued, never deliver judgments radically critical of the status quo. This is so because that is not the job of law, for law is an intrinsically systems-conservative force. The cases that seem to do this, such as Mabo in Australia and Roe v. Wade in the US (abortion case), were in fact welcomed by the establishment at the time, as Wilson pointed out. Just imagine if the US courts really did decide to hear cases of 2020 electoral fraud, instead of refusing to hear them, and concluded that it invalidated the election! Instant social disorder, so the US courts took the path of least resistance, knowing that conservatives would not act like the Left would if they did not get what they want. Likewise, with the Covid vaccine mandates, it would overturn the Australian status quo, so it is unlikely to happen, quite apart from technical arguments, it is the philosophical and jurisprudential context which directs thinking. Thus, the status quo is never challenged, come what may, and this will not change under the present legal system, so law is intrinsically limited.
It is political action, not law, which moves the wheels of history.
“A judge has dismissed two legal challenges to health orders requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for workers in NSW.
Key points:
- Unvaccinated workers initiated the court action, saying their employment had been impacted
- Justice Robert Beech-Jones ruled the arguments had failed on all grounds
- More than 40,000 viewers watched the decision on the court's YouTube channel
The cases, heard in the NSW Supreme Court, involved 10 plaintiffs including workers in health, aged care, construction and education.
All said their employment had been impacted by orders requiring vaccination to continue working, while some were in declared areas of concern as travel restrictions were imposed.
Each unvaccinated worker cited similar concerns about insufficient long-term data on COVID-19 vaccine safety and side effects.
The cases used various arguments to attack the validity of the health orders but contained common threads.
They contended that the orders violated rights to bodily integrity and privacy, implemented civil conscription, represented a breach of natural justice and were made by Health Minister Brad Hazzard without clear legislative authority.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones on Friday ruled that all grounds had failed.
He said any consideration about the reasonableness of orders should be undertaken by reference to the objects of the public health act, which were "directed exclusively at public safety".
The judge found that if an order was made interfering with freedom of movement and differentiating on "arbitrary grounds" unrelated to public health risks, such as race or gender, it would be at "severe risk" of being found to be invalid.
"However, the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary," Justice Beech-Jones wrote in his judgment.
"Instead, it applies a discrimen, namely vaccination status, that on the evidence and the approach taken by the minister is very much consistent with the objects of the Public Health Act."
The judge further rejected a constitutional argument about civil conscription and an asserted inconsistency with the immunisation register act.
"So far as the right to bodily integrity is concerned, it is not violated as the impugned orders do not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone," he said.
"Curtailing the free movement of persons, including their movement to and at work, are the very type of restrictions that the public health act clearly authorises."
During a late September hearing, barrister Peter King, for the plaintiffs in one case, said mandatory vaccination was "an irrational policy measure that is not only futile but unreasonable".
Jason Harkess, for the plaintiffs in the second case, said the orders resulted in coercion and "the right to work pitted against the right to bodily integrity".
Mr Hazzard, Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant, the State of NSW and the Commonwealth were named as defendants.
The orders could reasonably be regarded as necessary to protect public health and safety, barristers for the State of NSW told the court, highlighting their temporary nature.
The pandemic had presented governments with "diabolically difficult regulatory challenges", the defence said.
The orders imposed "blanket prohibitions" while offering exemption for the vaccinated, the State argued, meaning they incentivised vaccination but did not mandate it.
The cases attracted enormous audiences as they were livestreamed on the court's YouTube channel.
More than 40,000 viewers watched Friday's decision.”