Fighting Mandatory Vaccination By Mrs Vera West

     At long last, a possible legal challenge to the mandatory child vax laws. And don’t expect George Soros or Bill Gates to be sending a truck load of cash to fund it. It, as always, is back to the people to fight for their freedom:

“A NSW law firm that last month congratulated Victorians for not taking COVID-19 tests is behind a push to get No Jab No Play rules in SA scrapped. G & B Lawyers - with offices in Sydney and Wollongong - has told supporters it is confident an injunction to freeze the commencement date of No Jab No Play laws for child care centres in SA will be successful. The laws will take effect on August 7. But Health Minister Stephen Wade said any reduction to vaccines, especially during the COVID-19 era, was reckless. G & B Lawyers partner Nathan Buckley has set up a GoFundMe page aimed at raising money to take the State Government to court arguing the new laws are in breach of the Constitution. Last month a post on the G & B Lawyers Facebook page congratulated Victorians for “exercising their right not to have medical interventions forced upon them by refusing to be tested for COVID-19.” “Well done to you Victorians. Keep exercising your rights,” the post said. Another post attributed to Mr Buckley raised concerns about aged care workers having to have a flu vaccination. “Through the so-called public health laws, the Australian Government are trying to control every aspect of our lives,” the post said. Mr Wade said the government is firm in its resolve to protect children from vaccine-preventable diseases through its No Jab, No Play legislation. “The legislation will exclude unvaccinated children from early childhood services,” Mr Wade said. “Unfortunately, the access of children to services will be disrupted unless their parents arrange for them to be vaccinated but as we struggle to find a vaccine for COVID-19, it would be reckless not to protect children, their services and the wider community from the diseases for which we have vaccines.” Mr Buckley, who did not respond to The Advertiser on Tuesday, is asking for $33,000 to help fight the case. On Monday a new post on the legal firm’s Facebook page said “Barrister’s advice that we have reasonable prospects of success to overthrow the SA no jab no play laws”. The advice suggested the new SA laws are inconsistent with Commonwealth disability discrimination, but did not explain how.”

     I asked, by email, lawyer Ian Wilson how the argument might go and he thought that there could be an inconsistency of laws with section 22 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which provides:

1)  It is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability:
                     (a)  by refusing or failing to accept the person’s application for admission as a student; or
                     (b)  in the terms or conditions on which it is prepared to admit the person as a student.
             (2)  It is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a student on the ground of the student’s disability:
                     (a)  by denying the student access, or limiting the student’s access, to any benefit provided by the educational authority; or
                     (b)  by expelling the student; or
                     (c)  by subjecting the student to any other detriment.
          (2A)  It is unlawful for an education provider to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability:
                     (a)  by developing curricula or training courses having a content that will either exclude the person from participation, or subject the person to any other detriment; or
                     (b)  by accrediting curricula or training courses having such a content.
             (3)  This section does not render it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability in respect of admission to an educational institution established wholly or primarily for students who have a particular disability where the person does not have that particular disability.

     Certainly, the bans from childcare and financial support via Centrelink, constitute a prima facie case. Ian thought that it could be argued that the legislation was not appropriate and adaptive to the purpose of vaccination health, but was financially punitive. That argument may not win, but it should delay things a bit if leave is granted for its hearing. The website for people to donate:

     Remember, older citizens, that it is mandatory for visitors to have flu vaccinations in aged-care facilities, so best they help out to stop compulsory vaccination:

“The influenza vaccine is only compulsory for those who intend to visit, or who work in, a residential aged care facility. This is the first year that nursing homes will be able to turn away visitors who do not have their 2020 flu shot under the public health emergency directions put in place as a result of COVID-19. "The aim of the restrictions on visitors and entry into residential aged care is to protect vulnerable older people in residential aged care," a federal health department spokesman said. "Broadly there are no exemptions from these entry restrictions for individuals that choose not to receive the influenza vaccine for personal, cultural or religious reasons." There are exemptions for medical reasons, an ACT Health spokesman confirmed. For everyone else, the vaccine is not compulsory but it is recommended for all Australians (aged over six months and who have no contraindications).”



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Thursday, 13 August 2020
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to