Judges do not seem to be aware that doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc have a legal and ethical obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination - this cannot be done under coercion, intimidation and mandates.
I enjoyed reading your analysis, which was like pouring water on the burning flame that I felt yesterday. Nevertheless it certainly helps to have a critical eye on the detail, which I didn't have time to do, so thank you for the time and scrutiny you have applied to this judgement.
I have many thoughts, but the one that comes to mind is at 428-460 where the judge makes it clear that human rights are not absolute and are subordinate to some collective notion that gives free passes when there are complicating factors involved. As you quote where the judge opines that the situation was:
"...complicated by the fact that these directions were given in what was, by any measure, an emergency. It was further complicated by the fact that, at the time of giving the directions, the knowledge available about the virus, its variants, its virulence, and its transmissibility was limited and being added to on an almost daily basis.”
So from my interpretation that means human rights, and by extrapolation informed consent, are not absolute. They will always be subject to the needs of the collective, where those who manage the needs of the collective can ensure matters can seem, more complicated than they really are. Enter Covid 19 - which was by all accounts the perfect vehicle to subjugate the collective. This cannot be disputed.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, they say. We now know many more things than we did in 2021, and some of this is called evidence. Slowly but surely it is emerging and in my opinion evidence will play a more prominent role in future legal cases.
Just a quick thought about the expert witnesses. It seems that even with the respondents' expert witness testimony by Prof Griffin and Associate Prof Searle the judge struggled with relevance of certain facts presented about the Covid virus and vaccines. That the applicants' expert witness, Professor Petrovsky, was written off as an unreliable conspiracy theorist made for quite murky reading (from 387-396).
Anyway, just some quick thoughts which may or may not be on the money, so to speak. Thanks once again for your great analysis. I too am happy to admit I'm no lawyer.
At 306-307 it is noted that no substantive argument was made that any individual’s right to life was limited, but such an argument could have and should have been made. To this day no lawyer has attempted this argument.
14 people are officially classified as killed by vaccines in Australia (about 60 in the UK). Covid vaccination mandates were enforced after the mandating authority knew that a percentage of the vaccinated are expected to be killed by the vaccines.
The ‘right to life’ entails that no person may be arbitrarily killed. If a person is coerced to accept conditions under which they may be arbitrarily killed, that person's ‘right’ to life is thereby denied, therefore violated. Vaccine mandates amount to coercing people to accept conditions under which any person may be arbitrarily killed, thus denying their individual right to life.
A vaccination mandate was/is typically communicated in a personally addressed enforcement notice to anyone deemed non-compliant. The individual right to life is denied by intentionally imposing conditions under which the individual is included in a group whose members ‘can be’ arbitrarily deprived of life (vs the right ‘not to be’ arbitrarily deprived of life.) I provisionally construct the sense of ‘arbitrary’ as ‘innocent of a crime that warrants death’.
I apologize but I always get to these posts long after active commentary is viable but in this instance I feel compelled to make a couple of comments: one comment I wish to make is of your interpretation of the Judge's remark regarding the Police Commissioner "...the police commissioner sat very unprepared and clueless in the witness box." Of course she did. She was unprepared and clueless precisely because this hearing was of no consequence to her and she knew it. Why prepare for a court appearance that will have no impact on you or your department in any way?
As a potential defendant in the Covid fiasco (should we live in a just society) the Police Commissioner might naturally have been concerned that her lack of preparation could lead her to inadvertently incriminate herself or someone else in the Govt., but there was no need for any such concern. This Hearing and Decision were only ever going to serve as "a calibration exercise for the managerial class" - as you so rightly observed. In this hearing the Police Commissioner was just one more actor on a stage. Whatever the ruling, she knew it was only a show. Like a 'lessons learned' review conducted at the end of a corporate project.
As Carl Schmitt, 70 yrs ago, and Giorgio Agamben, most recently, both pointed out: when you live in a State of Exception there are no rules, no justice, no integrity, no accountability and ultimately no mercy. That's the state that we live in. We are cattle being 'pharmed' and it will go on until we say stop.
I've only read this far ... "i.e. what if I claim your freedom violates my human rights, what then do we do but regress to argue who is the greater victim?"
I do plan to read further.
In the meantime, in my understanding, in a Liberal Democracy we have freedom to act in our own interests, but this is subject to the duty NOT to harm others ... a negative duty. I think this fixes the problem?
I look at this simply...
Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
Judges do not seem to be aware that doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc have a legal and ethical obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination - this cannot be done under coercion, intimidation and mandates.
I enjoyed reading your analysis, which was like pouring water on the burning flame that I felt yesterday. Nevertheless it certainly helps to have a critical eye on the detail, which I didn't have time to do, so thank you for the time and scrutiny you have applied to this judgement.
I have many thoughts, but the one that comes to mind is at 428-460 where the judge makes it clear that human rights are not absolute and are subordinate to some collective notion that gives free passes when there are complicating factors involved. As you quote where the judge opines that the situation was:
"...complicated by the fact that these directions were given in what was, by any measure, an emergency. It was further complicated by the fact that, at the time of giving the directions, the knowledge available about the virus, its variants, its virulence, and its transmissibility was limited and being added to on an almost daily basis.”
So from my interpretation that means human rights, and by extrapolation informed consent, are not absolute. They will always be subject to the needs of the collective, where those who manage the needs of the collective can ensure matters can seem, more complicated than they really are. Enter Covid 19 - which was by all accounts the perfect vehicle to subjugate the collective. This cannot be disputed.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, they say. We now know many more things than we did in 2021, and some of this is called evidence. Slowly but surely it is emerging and in my opinion evidence will play a more prominent role in future legal cases.
Just a quick thought about the expert witnesses. It seems that even with the respondents' expert witness testimony by Prof Griffin and Associate Prof Searle the judge struggled with relevance of certain facts presented about the Covid virus and vaccines. That the applicants' expert witness, Professor Petrovsky, was written off as an unreliable conspiracy theorist made for quite murky reading (from 387-396).
Anyway, just some quick thoughts which may or may not be on the money, so to speak. Thanks once again for your great analysis. I too am happy to admit I'm no lawyer.
At 306-307 it is noted that no substantive argument was made that any individual’s right to life was limited, but such an argument could have and should have been made. To this day no lawyer has attempted this argument.
14 people are officially classified as killed by vaccines in Australia (about 60 in the UK). Covid vaccination mandates were enforced after the mandating authority knew that a percentage of the vaccinated are expected to be killed by the vaccines.
The ‘right to life’ entails that no person may be arbitrarily killed. If a person is coerced to accept conditions under which they may be arbitrarily killed, that person's ‘right’ to life is thereby denied, therefore violated. Vaccine mandates amount to coercing people to accept conditions under which any person may be arbitrarily killed, thus denying their individual right to life.
A vaccination mandate was/is typically communicated in a personally addressed enforcement notice to anyone deemed non-compliant. The individual right to life is denied by intentionally imposing conditions under which the individual is included in a group whose members ‘can be’ arbitrarily deprived of life (vs the right ‘not to be’ arbitrarily deprived of life.) I provisionally construct the sense of ‘arbitrary’ as ‘innocent of a crime that warrants death’.
Robert,
I apologize but I always get to these posts long after active commentary is viable but in this instance I feel compelled to make a couple of comments: one comment I wish to make is of your interpretation of the Judge's remark regarding the Police Commissioner "...the police commissioner sat very unprepared and clueless in the witness box." Of course she did. She was unprepared and clueless precisely because this hearing was of no consequence to her and she knew it. Why prepare for a court appearance that will have no impact on you or your department in any way?
As a potential defendant in the Covid fiasco (should we live in a just society) the Police Commissioner might naturally have been concerned that her lack of preparation could lead her to inadvertently incriminate herself or someone else in the Govt., but there was no need for any such concern. This Hearing and Decision were only ever going to serve as "a calibration exercise for the managerial class" - as you so rightly observed. In this hearing the Police Commissioner was just one more actor on a stage. Whatever the ruling, she knew it was only a show. Like a 'lessons learned' review conducted at the end of a corporate project.
As Carl Schmitt, 70 yrs ago, and Giorgio Agamben, most recently, both pointed out: when you live in a State of Exception there are no rules, no justice, no integrity, no accountability and ultimately no mercy. That's the state that we live in. We are cattle being 'pharmed' and it will go on until we say stop.
Alan Hamilton
I've only read this far ... "i.e. what if I claim your freedom violates my human rights, what then do we do but regress to argue who is the greater victim?"
I do plan to read further.
In the meantime, in my understanding, in a Liberal Democracy we have freedom to act in our own interests, but this is subject to the duty NOT to harm others ... a negative duty. I think this fixes the problem?