Facts show NSW Premier hysteria engineered

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

The chances of dying with Covid or from Covid in NSW over the last 20 months are 128 in 8,200,000 or 1 in 64,062. That’s a lot lower than the annual flu or road death risk.

It should be easy enough to conclude that the govt is deliberately locking up millions of people and spreading fear in the population as it destroys the economy and the lives of millions of people because of some other reason (or agenda) which is not related to the risk of people dying.

If such fear mongering were perpetrated by a foreign government, it would be called state sponsored terrorism. If the incarceration and denial of our basic freedoms and human rights were also perpetrated by a foreign government we would consider it a declaration of war against the Australian people.

So what do we call all that in the case of our own governments?

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.

Posted on August 25, 2021, in corruption, Covid Cops, Covid passport, Covid vaccines, People Control and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 32 Comments.

  1. it’s also a foreign government FARA Foreign Agents Registration statement required

    Like

  2. Richard Noakes

    The virus certainly struck a blow at democracy by undermining the ‘rule of law’ and confidence that people have in the vaccination process. It has also fatally compromised the rights and freedoms of people and wrecking the economies of the free world. In such an environment, it is no wonder that people have come to distrust the proposed remedy to the problem of COVID-19 infection, the origins of which are still totally obscured. 
    Importantly, the jurisprudence of the High Court clearly indicates that the prohibition of civil conscription must be construed widely to invalidate any law requiring such conscription expressly or by practical implication. In other words, no law in Australia can impose limitations on the rights of citizens that directly or indirectly amount to a form of civil conscription. If governments cannot constitutionally force everyone to be vaccinated, they certainly cannot indirectly create a situation whereby everybody would be forced to take the vaccine. This point is also addressed in a comment of Justice Webb in British Medical Association v Commonwealth:
    If Parliament cannot lawfully do this directly by legal means it cannot lawfully do it indirectly by creating a situation, as distinct from merely taking advantage of one, in which the individual is left no real choice but compliance” (emphasis added).[40]
    Furthermore, compulsory vaccination adversely affects the democratic principle of equality before the law. If unvaccinated Australians were to face serious restrictions of rights and freedoms – as suggested by medical officers and the Prime Minister – these restrictions would violate the democratic principle of equality before the law. Accordingly, in Leeth v Commonwealth,[41] Justice Deane and Justice Toohey referred to the Preamble to the Constitution to support their view that the principle of equality is embedded impliedly in the Constitution. They argued that “the essential or underlying theoretical equality of all persons under the law and before the courts is and has been a fundamental and generally beneficial doctrine of the common law and a basic prescript of the administration of justice under our system of government.”[42]
    The deliberate exclusion of unvaccinated Australian citizens from participation in certain activities discriminates against them on the ground of vaccine status. Of course, vaccine status is not one of the accepted grounds in any anti-discrimination legislation and, therefore, it would be possible for governments to defeat a claim that compulsory vaccination violates the anti-discrimination principle. However, reliance on vaccine status would still create an apartheid-type situation since benefits would be conferred and burdens imposed on this ground. But, more importantly, the making of coercive statements to force people to get vaccinated would effectively amount to an indirect form of mandatory vaccination, the constitutionality of which is doubtful at best. Indeed, from a constitutional point of view, the jurisprudence of the High Court indicates that what cannot be done directly, cannot be achieved indirectly without violating s. 51 of the Constitution.
    Finally, it is worth approaching the matter from the perspective of the dignity and privacy of individuals. Governments should avoid relying on the parens patriae doctrine according to which government will decide what is good for people: it would be a textbook example of the operation of the Nanny State that removes any sense of individual responsibility (and human dignity). In fact, such governmental approach violates international human rights law; it certainly contradicts the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Elaborated under the auspices of Eleanor Roosevelt and her commission, when she summed up the attitude of the framers, Roosevelt explained that this historical piece of international legislation was based on the expectation that everyone must have freedom in which to individually develop their “full stature and through common effort to raise the level of human dignity”.[43]
    There is seriously a danger of excessive state paternalism when citizens are not allowed to make personal decisions about their own medical treatment, including the decision of whether to take a COVID vaccine. This was highlighted in Airdale National Health Service Trust v Bland, when Lord Justice Mustill expounded on this danger with the following clarity: 
    If the patient is capable of making a decision on whether to permit treatment and decides not to permit it his choice must be obeyed, even if on any objective view it is contrary to his best interests. A doctor has no right to proceed in the face of objection, even it if is plain to all, including the patient, that adverse consequences and even death will or may ensue.[44] 
     
     Final Considerations
    The Constitution prohibits any form of compulsion, which would subject citizens to medical or pharmaceutical services, including mandatory vaccination. They should remain free to decide whether they wish to receive certain medical treatments, including vaccination, and they should not be disadvantaged by any government on the ground of their own voluntary decisions.  
    Of course, the Australian Constitution must always be interpreted in a manner that promotes its purposes, values and principles, advancing the rule of law and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen. As a consequence, any legislation that requires compulsory vaccination, either directly or indirectly, constitutes a form of civil conscription that is constitutionally invalid. On this view, unvaccinated Australians remain decent members of society and cannot be treated as lower class citizens.
     Augusto Zimmermann is professor and head of law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education in Perth. He is also adjunct professor of law at the University of Notre Dame Australia (Sydney campus), president of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association, editor-in-chief of the Western Australian Jurist law journal, and a former law reform commissioner in Western Australia. He is the co-editor of Fundamental Rights in the Age of COVID-19, a book with contributions from leading legal academics and policymakers in the field.
     Gabriël A. Moens AM is emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland and served as pro vice-chancellor and dean of law at Murdoch University. He is the co-author of The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Annotated (9thEd., LexisNexis, 2016). He has also published a novel about the origins of the COVID-19 virus, “A Twisted Choice” (Boolarong Press, 2020) and recently published a short story, “The Greedy Prospector” in an Anthology of short stories, The Outback (Boolarong Press, 2021). 

    This is a “Rule Of Law” Which would be used by a Court Of Law, to establish Legal Precedence, in making a Legal Judgement under Section 51 Of The Australian Constitution.

    Like

  3. This is agenda 2030 playing out right before our eyes.

    Like

  4. This is absolutely war against us, sold out completely by bureaucrats sadists and pathetic individuals that show no signs of understanding anything outside of their own fear, indoctrination corruption, immorality and rhetoric, imbecilic wastes of space, money and time.

    Like

  5. Unadulterated Treason; hang by the neck ’till dead

    Like

  6. Trevor W Sullivan

    The answer is, “Treason”. We call it treason.

    Like

  7. Graham McDonald

    I wish George Christensen would lay a charge on this megalomaniac Jeanette Young. The charge should be Criminal Malfeasance for knowingly preventing the use of safe drugs such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloraquine

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  8. the convicts are resigned. But there is a stockade/blockade in the offing.

    Like

  9. Correct it is no longer cases (which are not cases) it is now purely percentage vaccinations.
    Note Pfizer and Astra have come out with blood thinning and anti clot drugs a few months before releasing their clotshots so they inject the disease then sell you the drugs to control it.

    Like

  10. Treason

    Like

  11. I guess we need to adopt a brand new view of our world.

    First, in the fifties and sixties, we were told to fear communists; then drug pushers who would threaten us with syringes full of poison; then terrorists, because these were people who would destroy our free world.

    Today it is police and bureaucrats, politicians who we foolishly elected, and the doctors and nurses. Who woulda thought that they would brandish the weapons of oppression and war?

    What I want to know is when do I do what my grandfather and uncle did, who died fighting the fascists for freedom and democracy. I am an Aussie patriot and I do not fear fighting for my grandchildren and fellow Aussies. The truckies can count on me.

    Like

  12. the media is complicent . without the media the new nazi couldn,t get the lies out there. the sheeple will get what they deserve.in a population of 25 million it only takes a hand fill of Judas sheep. to lead the lambs to slaughter.

    Like

  13. Gabriele Gaven

    I would say it is called: they are all in this together to show Us how sinister they are ,,..never would have thought that we still pay and they still want to kill Us….

    Like

  14. It’s called BS!

    Like

  15. The fact that the Australian Federal government is a corporation/business registered in Washington DC, masquerading as Australian government would decree it to be a declaration of war by default. If the “parent corporation” ( Federal Government) is the primary corporation, despite all other state and territory governments also registered in Washington DC, the “parent/primary corporation” holds power over the other tiers. Hence it is a declaration of war by default, or otherwise stated…. notice to agent is notice to principle, notice to principle is notice to agent.

    Like

  16. TREASON! What else is it? Plus, they are committing genocide, and many people have decided enough is enough. Please spread the info below so that we, the people, can take down our elected government. Support the truckers who have the guts to stand against this tyranny.
    https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/world/australia-new-zealand-to-be-shut-down-by-truckers-on-aug-31-to-throw-off-the-government?fbclid=IwAR2CYzqgWt5WuJS3K63IDYSearmVkXBVOKGF4AcDNQlRkafIvEhu2o8gvGo

    Liked by 1 person

  17. truthtellertonni

    William Wallace called it Tyranny.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Nobody has died of Covid

    Like

  19. TREASON > TREASON > TREASON

    Like

  20. On the basis of international information, I’m obliged to conclude that the 128 identified “covid deaths” must be even smaller.

    The NSW Health Dept site states that the PCR tests in NSW are run at 40-45 CT instead of the internationally recommended 25-30 CT. At 40-45 CT, the tests are generally considered to yield massive instances of FALSE positives. Either the NSW government is unaware of the problem or it is facilitating the huge numbers of FALSE positive cases for a good reason which we are not told.

    Would someone please tell us the reason so that we can make informed decisions. There are still too many people who are uncertain whether to send their children to the government gene therapy injection centers for corrective treatment.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. How do you imagine world governments trade without some commercial identity ????????????????????

    Like

  22. So very true Roland … ED

    Like

  23. Spot on, and yet a large portion of Aussies have followed the sacrificial lamb to the JAB house on instructions from corrupt politicians. Guess they would rush the wall to front a firing squad?

    Like

  24. As a pensioner, my ability to do much is severely restricted. The worst thing they could do is let me win lotto, and give me the resources to file against the whole bloody lot for treason.

    Like

  25. It just may be that the truckies will be the beginning of a snowball type affect. All vehicles, machinery, campervans, tractors etc. will also take part. They will be joined by people bringing tents/camp gear ready for the long haul. This could be the catalyst. Goodness knows we are already at the precipice right now and need to have an impact. I hope and pray.

    Like

  26. St. Tammany Parish Declares D DAY Covid Delta

    Will the officials go to jail for public corruption and fraud?

    Help Stop the Fraud!

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/Hgvofm4qgvYk/

    Like

  27. Richard Noakes

    To: old kodger
    It does not cost more than $25 to $50 to file an action with the District Court and once you have lodged it with The clerk Of courts, the Crown takes up your case, on your behalf, against whoever you have the case against and it does not cost you anything else, however, the person who you make your case against, has to pay for their defense out of their own pocket – unless it is a politician, when probably his party will pick up the tab.

    Final Considerations
    The Constitution prohibits any form of compulsion, which would subject citizens to medical or pharmaceutical services, including mandatory vaccination. They should remain free to decide whether they wish to receive certain medical treatments, including vaccination, and they should not be disadvantaged by any government on the ground of their own voluntary decisions.  

    Of course, the Australian Constitution must always be interpreted in a manner that promotes its purposes, values and principles, advancing the rule of law and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen. As a consequence, any legislation that requires compulsory vaccination, either directly or indirectly, constitutes a form of civil conscription that is constitutionally invalid. On this view, unvaccinated Australians remain decent members of society and cannot be treated as lower class citizens.

     Augusto Zimmermann is professor and head of law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education in Perth. He is also adjunct professor of law at the University of Notre Dame Australia (Sydney campus), president of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association, editor-in-chief of the Western Australian Jurist law journal, and a former law reform commissioner in Western Australia. He is the co-editor of Fundamental Rights in the Age of COVID-19, a book with contributions from leading legal academics and policymakers in the field.

     Gabriël A. Moens AM is emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland and served as pro vice-chancellor and dean of law at Murdoch University. He is the co-author of The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Annotated (9thEd., LexisNexis, 2016). He has also published a novel about the origins of the COVID-19 virus, “A Twisted Choice” (Boolarong Press, 2020) and recently published a short story, “The Greedy Prospector” in an Anthology of short stories, The Outback (Boolarong Press, 2021). 

    This means that you can refuse to have the vaccines, because that is your right and it cannot be forced on you. If you do not consent, then you cannot be forcefully vaccinated.

    The above, is part of a “Rule Of Law” which is what the Australian Constitution is based on and it is a legal direction that a DCJ would require in a Court Of Law and in itself, it is a very powerful rule.

    What the truckies are doing, is commendable, but the pen is always more powerful than the sword, or in this case, a cudgel.

    The weakness of the politicians, is to use their own Laws and the Australian Constitution against them, because then you compete on an equal footing re: “As a consequence, any legislation that requires compulsory vaccination, either directly or indirectly, constitutes a form of civil conscription that is constitutionally invalid” because that is the Rule Of Law and the Rule Of Law is more powerful than any one person or political party.

    Like

  28. How did governments trade before the concept of “commercial identity” ???????????????????????
    If I had to take a long stab in the dark and at best guess, it would have been barter!!
    An exchange of one good for another of equal agreed worth, long before the inception of coin or precious metals.

    Like

  29. Going on daviddd2 Nope the PCR test should never be used for these Viruses anyway as per the Science Noble Prize winner inventor Kary Mullis who said they could pick up the slightest fragment of anything Period. The same Kary challenged Dr Fauci to a debate on Science and the human body saying he knew absolutely nothing,he also stated there was some kind of Agenda but of course that never happened as Kary Mullis died a few months later of all things Pneumonia Yeh Right. Then a Virus came and a German guy called Drosten said that he had invented a PCR test and the WHO took it as solid and mandated it to be used and it seems like daviddd2 was correct with this they all used the cycles at over the 25/28 threshold right up at 40/45 plus to get all the False Positives and Positives and of course the the WHO announced a Pandemic, ready for the Big Pharma and the New Worlds Professor Phd Virologist Epidemiologist Immunologist Dr Sir Gates Vaccines Honey Pot Nope none of these to get us all Jabbed with a new Gene Therapy so called vaccine as it’s the best investment he’s ever made at 20 to 1. And if we do a really good job we can make people Healthier while De Populating the Planet and of course he’s even been allowed to be a one man Country at the WHO and he’s in Collaboration with the Criminal organisations like the CDC and FDA who are all linked upto the Big Pharma and the Global Elites plus Klaus Swamp Davos New World Reset and Economic Forums. Now the billions are rolling in and the mass Genocide is also looking worse for the Worlds People as per the Ex VP of Pfizer Mike Yeadon and one of the Worlds Noble Prize winner Virologist Luc Montagnier

    Like

  30. @ Alan Bainbridge
    Quite right, Alan, your summary is spot on. Despite better knowledge, NSW STILL uses 40-45 CT!!!! The high priest-psychopaths are “protecting” us from death by locking us up and creating massive numbers of FALSE POSITIVES in order to inject us with our life saving, and their wealth and power boosting, experimental Frankenstein potions. 🙂

    Like

  31. Quote “To: old kodger
    It does not cost more than $25 to $50 to file an action with the District Court and once you have lodged it with The clerk Of courts, the Crown takes up your case, on your behalf, against whoever you have the case against and it does not cost you anything else, however, the person who you make your case against, has to pay for their defense out of their own pocket – unless it is a politician, when probably his party will pick up the tab.” end quote

    Please tell that to Brian Shaw who filed against Julia Gillard way back when she was prime minister, it hasn’t seen the light of day since!
    In fact, he was declared a vexatious litigant.

    Like

  32. I knew someone who was a vexatious litigant.

    He put cases against everyone who looked at him sideways and he thought they had it in for him.

    In the end, his “cases” were taking up so much of the Courts time, that a DCJ called him a vexatious litigant and all of his cases, from that point on were discarded, out of hand.

    I don’t see that a sensible argument would be refused by a Court, if there was sufficient supporting, confirmed evidence, to argue the point before a Court Of Law, provided those who made the written arguments were experts in their field and their judgements inarguable, as would be the case of Covid being a partial Bio-Weapon and the vaccines the other half of the equation.

    Richard

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.