NSW Supreme Court upholds Hazzard’s medical tyranny
By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
PEOPLE were hoping and praying for an outcome in the Kassam and Henry v Hazzard cases that reflected Australia’s tradition of upholding the sacred rights of the individual. But they were instead shocked and disappointed by the dismissal of the cases by a judge who claimed the case failed because Australia does not have a bill of rights.
It seems Judge Beech-Jones has not been following what’s been happening in two countries with alleged human rights protections from a Bill of Rights – Canada and New Zealand. Both have exactly the same kind of medical tyranny that is happening now in Australia. Both, like Australia, are also common law jurisdictions, but that doesn’t appear to matter much to the judiciary these days.
The only positive outcome of the case was for the NSW government to admit it was “not forcing” people to get vaccinated because forced medical treatment without consent is a form of assault. But apparently the Australian legal fraternity believes a government could even legislate to make assault with a needle legal if they wanted to.
The Supreme Court of NSW in effect upheld the lying, bullying and coercion of the Liberal Party gang around the failed, corrupt premier Berejiklian and the nasty little bully otherwise known as Health Minister Brad Hazzard – the main defendant in the cases.
Cairns News was warned of this outcome because courts and law schools for years have increasingly swallowed the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty, that is, they compromise the rule of law, e.g. common law and constitutional law, in favour of parliaments and their power to make any law they want.
Judge Beech-Jones also rejected the constitutional issue raised in the cases, namely Sect.51 23(a) on the protection against civil conscription. It’s pretty clear that Hazzard and company were employing civil conscription against the people of NSW by coercing them into vaccination, but no, his legal eagles threw up pages and pages of nuanced technical legal twists and turns to put the argument in doubt, while throwing principle out the door.
So now we have the extreme situation where politicians and public servants, acting under the corrupt sway of the so-called global health network, corruptly and casually override constitutional principles and basic human rights such as freedom of movement and the right to work.
Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors told Monica Smit of Reignite Democracy he disagreed with the dismissal of the cases, but he was also an advocate for a bill of rights. Has Tony Nikolic or Judge Beech-Jones heard of the English Bill of Rights, that is actually a part of all legislation in Australia in the Imperial Acts Application Acts of the states? Does not the English Bill of Rights uphold basic rights to life, liberty and property?
Nikolic is probably well aware of that, and said his firm actually had provided folders full of evidence to the court showing the history of common law and its relevance to the cases. But apparently that’s old school and irrelevant to the progressive Judge Beech Jones.
The two lawsuits sought to invalidate the so-called Public Health Delta Order “to deal with the public health risk of COVID-19 and its possible consequences.” The order was based on section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010, which supposedly allows the health minister to implement actions and directives upon consideration of “reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health.”
The so-called Delta variant was a fast spreading but less infectious mutant of the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus, which has not yet been isolated and is neither “novel” nor the result of a bat viruses mutating. Delta was originally the Indian variant, but changed when people suggested the name was racist.
Al-Munir Kassam and Natasha Henry challenged provisions of the Delta Order which required a relevant care worker whose place of residence or place of work was in an area of concern “to have at least one (1) dose of a COVID-19 vaccine” or in its absence, to have “been issued with a medical contraindication certificate”.
Under the dictatorial order, teachers, aged care workers and health care workers “must get vaccinated within specific periods” or not be allowed to enter their places of employment. Actually, the government itself admitted they’re “not forcing you to get vaccinated” so you can ignore the order if you want to.
The Delta Order also prescribes that the workers concerned carry with them proof of their vaccination status.
The state defended the Delta Order’s restrictions, saying they “can reasonably be regarded as necessary to protect public health and safety” while Section 7 of the Public Health Act and the NSW Delta Order “do not impose civil conscription,” the Commonwealth stated in its submission.
The Commonwealth said that the enactment of the Public Health Act was in line with its legislative powers, and the enactment of the Delta Order was in line with the power given to Hazzard.
In July Nikolic wrote a public letter to Hazzard, saying “a competent adult patient has the right to refuse medical treatment for whatever reasons, rational or irrational.” Hazzard’s lawyers eventually agreed, if that’s some small comfort from the case.
Posted on October 16, 2021, in Covid Cops, covid lockdown, Covid vaccines, General, Law Courts, Supreme Court and tagged Corrupt Judicial, Flawed Judges, NSW Supreme Court. Bookmark the permalink. 36 Comments.