RE: 'Mandate' to inoculate all "authorised workers"
In response to Daniel Andrews 'mandate' to have all "authorised workers" inoculated with one of the many, experimental, COVID-19 vaccines, I would like to draw to your attention the following points of serious concern, and the breach of human rights.
Vaccination is a complex topic in which medical professional, and medico experts still debate, however this is not the core issue of concern, but rather, the core is simply human rights with medical freedom to choose medical procedures.
I would like to provide the following information for your review as to why this is a clear breach of human rights, and why all men and women who believe in a free, and fair Australia, for all Australian citizens, should collectively stand against this 'mandate'.
The core of the issue is “Should the government have the power to determine by force, duress or coercion a person's choice of medical procedures?” This issue, is really that simple.
Whether it’s vaccination, sterilization, or something as innocent as taking a 'Panadol', the question remains the same. When the issue is broken down to its core, the question is that simple. Of course, the answer is a resounding no.
With specific concern to the COVID-19 vaccines, it should be made clearly known that these vaccines have not been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and have only received emergency preliminary use in clinical trials. These trials are expected to end in April 2023, and as such, all participants are subjects of an experiment, whether they understand this, or not. It is a major breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research to have Research Without Consent conducted, when it constitutes forced, or coerced (under duress) human experimentation.
If a person, medico, or otherwise, undertaking forced human experimentation, subjects a person to cruel inhuman treatment, against their expressed wish, not only does this constitute a servitude offense under The Australian Crimes Act, it is also assault.
BREACH OF THE NUREMBERG CODE
I now draw your attention to the Nuremberg Code.
The Nuremberg Code is a critical element of medical ethics after the Second World War atrocities that were conducted. The first line of this states “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” The Code then goes on to state that the consent should be “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion”.
Refusing employment, and wages to workers who refuse to participate in this clinical trial, is a clear form of financial duress and coercion (and also over-reaching, and an abuse of position, by Daniel Andrews MP). Some families rely on this work to enable or assist them to provide for their family, and to deny access to employment is coercion of these conscientious objectors to subject themselves to a medical procedure. Even if these conscientious objector “agree” to the medical procedure because they cannot afford to not be employed, this is still not consent.
The principle of valid consent spawns from the Nuremberg Code. The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them.
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”
The Australian Immunisation Handbook reflects the Nuremberg Code in requiring valid consent as a pre-cursor to vaccination. Specifically:
“For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:
1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
4. It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.
5. The individual must have sufficient opportunity to seek further details or explanations about the vaccine(s) and/or its administration.”
Choice is critical given the absence of a vaccine injury compensation scheme in Australia.
BREACH OF AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION CODE OF ETHICS
The Australian Medical Association Code of Ethics
Section 1.1.k states “Respect your patient’s right to choose their doctor freely, to accept or reject advice and to make their own decisions about treatment or procedures.” If patients were to subject themselves to vaccination due to the duress and coercion of this 'mandate', this hardly provides informed consent. As such, a doctor must respect a Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 Submission 511 - patients’ choice and could therefore not administrate this vaccination. Likewise, the Government does not have the right to dictate what medical procedure a natural born man, or natural born woman of Australia must undertake. This is not informed consent.
BREACH OF VICTORIAN CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Here in Victoria, within the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities there is specific item which is also clearly violated “Everyone is entitled to equal and effective protection against discrimination, and to enjoy their human rights without discrimination.”
To enforce this 'mandate' would be to clearly discriminate against people who have chosen not to vaccinate due to their research, family history, choices and beliefs.
CHOICE BASED ON THE MEDICAL ETHICS
A cornerstone of medical ethics is “informed consent”. This means that the recipient of the medical procedure must be informed of all the potential risks associated with the procedure. With the poor state of medical research, the research into the risks is very poor. Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet medical journal, stated “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”* The second aspect of informed consent - is consent. If a vaccination is a made mandatory, there is no consent. It’s that simple. Therefore the politics behind this 'mandate' has become more about human rights than vaccination. If we allow the Premier of Victoria to violate human rights in order to pursue a policy which has no basis in objective science, and may be found untrue after careful, transparent, and critical investigation, we risk subjecting all Victorians to human rights abuses for all generations to come. We should not, and I am not willing to, participate in risky medical procedures mandated by the Victorian government, which violate ethical medical practice, and a person's right to body autonomy, and self determination.
*(http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf)
I would like to draw your attention to the elements of the offence of workplace manslaughter.
The elements of the new workplace manslaughter offence are:
- the person charged must be a body corporate or a person who is not an employee or volunteer
- they must have owed the victim a specified duty under the OHS Act
- they breached the duty owed by negligent conduct
- the breach of the duty caused the death of the victim, and
- if the person charged is a natural person they must have acted consciously and voluntarily when breaching the duty owed
As of the 26th of September 2021, the TGA has received 64,293 reports of Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AFEI), and has investigated 564 reports of deaths, following immunisation of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Having brought these significant issues of concern to your attention, a case for negligent conduct can now be made, upon any action undertaken to enforce the 'mandate' given by the Premier of Victoria.
VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
I would like to bring to your remembrance the words of the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. Speaking after a national cabinet meeting, held in the first week of August, 2021, Scott Morrison stated “We do not have a mandatory vaccination policy in this country.” He further stated “We do not have that. We’re not proposing to have that. That is not changing."
Under Chapter 5, section 117 of the The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act it is written "A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
As the 'mandate' given by the Premier of Victoria falls solely upon Victorian 'authorised' workers, and as such does not apply to all Australians, the 'mandate' is in direct violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is the highest law in the land.
Under section 109, it is written "When a law of a State is inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid."
As the 'mandate' given by the Premier of Victoria violates section 117, it becomes invalid, as the law of the Commonwealth is the overriding law of the land, and as such, the 'mandate' cannot be upheld in a court of law.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
I would like to address the words of the Attorney-General for Victoria (at THE RELATION OF DALE AND OTHERS); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth, commonly known as the "First Pharmaceutical Benefits case", which was a High Court of Australia decision, for it was here that the High Court of Australia, in 1945, provided the following on the subject matter of vaccination & immunisation.
p.257.
"The Commonwealth can, in my view, authorize the expenditure of public money on inquiries, investigations, research and advocacy in relation to matters affecting public health. But the Parliament could not pass a law requiring citizens of the States to keep their premises clean or to submit to vaccination or immunization."
As the Parliament cannot pass a law requiring citizens of the States to submit to vaccination, or immunizations, The 'mandate' given by the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, is merely a product of mischief, malfeasance, and misconduct, and a serious abuse of position, as the Premier of Victoria.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the legal challenges to directions under the public health and Wellbeing Act 2008 that have been brought before the courts in Victoria. Those matters have not been heard and I urge you to wait for the outcomes of those cases.
I thank you for reviewing these matters of serious concern, and discussing them with me.
I look forward to continuing in your employment, while upholding the judgement of the High Court of Australia, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, International Law, The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, as well as The Australian Medical Association Code of Ethics.
Yours sincerely,
(enter your name here)
Just a thought regarding the section mentioned from the Australian Immunisation Handbook. I note in particular the wording at the end of Item 1: "...the implications of being vaccinated." (My bold/italic). Given the concoction in question is arguably not such a thing (inasmuch as it: a) Is still in experimental trials, and b) Fails to meet the definition of a vaccine in respect to both safety and efficacy), any argument against the AIH would appear to be void before one even begins, on that front at least.
Great letter, you referred at the end to out come "to the legal challenges to directions under the public health and Wellbeing Act 2008 that have been brought before the courts in Victoria. " Which challenges are you referring to? Are you talking about Fair Work Commission Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) decision? Or which others? Thank you.