Homeschooling has greatly increased in the wake of the lockdowns imposed by pretend governments pretending to govern for the people who pretended to elect them. The argument by compliant citizens against the homeschooling of children goes something along the lines of, aren’t you afraid that your child won’t be socialised? The correct rejoinder is to declare that you don’t want your children to grow up into socialists.
Although I have been writing about Australia’s totalitarian tendencies for some time, tendencies that stretch far back in the nation’s history, that awareness has finally jumped the shark to the world stage. John Wilder has compiled a nice summation of some of the international reactions to Australia’s all-in move against its population. Today in The Australian, columnist Katrina Kelly, who usually pretends to have at least one leg over the right hand side of the fence, has penned an opinion piece titled, No protection in law for the idiocy of anti-vaxxers. The newspaper also has a real time data sheet showing the vaccination level across the entire country which currently stands at around 35%. Make of that what you will.
People are being sacked every day now for refusing to have a Covid-19 vaccine. Some are just being stood down, and given more time to get themselves organised, before the axe falls.
Pretty soon the unvaccinated probably won’t be able to catch a plane, go to a pub or a concert, eat in a restaurant, or do that seemingly most vital of activities; drink a coffee in a cafe.
This intro to the piece is presented as matter of fact. That’s just the way it is, idiot anti-vaxxers. Sorry, not sorry. But Kelly continues to examine the situation under Australia’s extensive and ridiculous anti-discrimination laws. Is it illegal in Australia to discriminate against those people who don’t care to subject their bodies to experimental gene therapy?
Importantly, vaccination status is not a protected attribute in any anti-discrimination legislation. Lack of vaccination is not grounds on which anyone can claim discriminatory treatment, in any area of life.
Owners of premises, and operators of business, can – without justifying their position to anyone – deny entry or service to the unvaccinated.
This is a neat sleight of hand, also known as a lie. If Kelly were honest she would be examining the legal standpoint of discrimination from the position of the government mandating the jabs, not the businesses forced by threat of closure to go along with the decision. Professor Augosto Zimmermann, a former law reform commissioner in Western Australia, had this to say on the subject.
Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution states that no medical or pharmaceutical treatment can be imposed on anyone without his or her informed consent. This view is supported by the Nuremberg Code – an ethics code relied upon during the Nazi doctors’ trials in Nuremberg in 1947. This Code has as its first principle the understanding that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”.
Vaccination passports also directly violate section 92 of the Constitution. Section 92 is written in relatively simple language to describe a basic concept that any trade, commerce and intercourse among the States shall be “absolutely free”.
To say that every state and federal government in Australia is currently acting illegally is putting it mildly. But Australians are so out of touch with the basic legal framework of their own country that they simply have no idea of the actual situation, and the government sponsored media sure isn’t going to alleviate them of their ignorance. Which means that, barring some strategic asteroid strike on every parliament and government building in the country, the situation in the short term isn’t going to improve.
Which means that Australian citizens have a decision to make. Is drinking a coffee in a café really such a vital activity? How about going to that concert or catching that plane? What would happen if the solid 30% of the country who oppose this medical experiment quietly refused to participate in society? What would be the effect on the economy if such a large cohort simply stepped back? What sort of effect would it have on the government’s tax base?
In other words, who would blink first?
Without a doubt this would be financially difficult for many of these Australians. But the next step of such a process would be for the official anti-vaxxers to support one another. And in doing so they would begin to grow and nature a real community, cut off and isolated from all of the false promises and evil temptations of the modern world. And the more that it worked for them then the more anti-fragile they would become, and the less power the government would have over them.
Perhaps this gigantic government overreaction is a beautiful opportunity to break free of the bonds that bind us. When change occurs it is always preceded by a stressful event; one almost never changes voluntarily. As our government moves more and more towards becoming a socialist state, the best counter-measure at this time is to refuse to be socialised. And to find solidarity in the real and courageous Australians around us.