So sorry NSW

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   10 posts
  • Fri, Oct 15, 2021 - 01:31am

    #1
    Kiwibug

    Kiwibug

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 26 2020

    Posts: 18

    count placeholder3

    So sorry NSW

So sorry everyone who worked so hard and had so much riding on this.
I’ve jst heard the high court NSW Australia vaccine mandate decision.
why am i not surprised.
How can this NOT be about bodily integrity?

I suppose a defeated, and therefore compliant, population makes the next requirement in this reset that much easier.
Of course an implanted nanobot, monitored 24/7, is for our own safety. Just ask the courts, and roll up your sleeve…

  • Fri, Oct 15, 2021 - 02:35am

    #2
    HPHovercraft

    HPHovercraft

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 31 2021

    Posts: 171

    count placeholder3

    NSW Supreme Court judgment/decision

Thanks for this.

It is an interesting ruling.  This seems to be the argument that won (my emphasis):

Vaccination not forced in NSW, court told [yahoo.com]

But Mr Hazzard’s barrister, Jeremy Kirk SC, told the court the case wasn’t about vaccine mandates.

He said the rules were really a temporary restriction on movement, which the plaintiffs could avoid if they decided to get vaccinated.

“There is no requirement for vaccination,” Mr Kirk said. “There is a condition on the exception (to the stay-at-home orders) which people can take advantage of or not.”

The judge seems to have agreed to this.  The judgment does not concern facts about the vaccines, only the legality of the restrictions on movement.

Challenge to COVID-19 vaccine mandate fails in NSW Supreme Court [smh.com.au]

So what is being imposed is a restraint on movement and this restraint is supposed to be temporary.  There is no forced vaccinations.  I’m wondering just how temporary are these restrictions?

HP

  • Fri, Oct 15, 2021 - 03:04am

    #3
    Canuckian

    Canuckian

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 27 2010

    Posts: 209

    count placeholder5

    So sorry NSW

The whole idea is for them to be permanent. First step is to get people to accept ‘movement’ passports. Next step is to keep adding new conditions to prevent mobility and track people.

  • Fri, Oct 15, 2021 - 03:15am

    #4
    nordicjack

    nordicjack

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2020

    Posts: 1653

    count placeholder4

    So sorry NSW

Actually, technically this is exactly what people are more worried about than the mandate, and why they felt it needed to be challenged.  As it will cause a second class citizen and thereby be a gateway to constant monitoring, forced procedures , social credit and more.

This ruling is in fact more concerning than that if it they simply mandated the vaccine and if it were about the vaccine.

  • Fri, Oct 15, 2021 - 05:25am   (Reply to #2)

    #7
    HPHovercraft

    HPHovercraft

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 31 2021

    Posts: 171

    count placeholder1

    The importance of the relativity of institutional detail

The devil is in the detail

In respect to my earlier post, I’d just like to stress the importance of the relativity of institutional details and arrangements. Australia is quite different from the US, and the government of NSW has proven to be quite distinct from other state governments within Australia.

As I have stressed elsewhere, many of the details of these mandates in NSW seem to be intended to be transitional arrangements and have been linked to movement, with a comparatively short duration. Remember that these mandates are, at least in part, part of a lockdown which is currently in the process of being lifted. Hence the emphasis on movement and restrictions on movement. I, myself, found myself in the cross-hairs of such a mandate in Sydney NSW. Of course the lockdowns may return but, for now, that is another issue.

In a weird, not terribly Australian way, Gladys did tend to emphasize freedom in her recent press conferences. And the new premier of NSW, Dominic Perrottet seems to be actually less draconian than Gladys, who certainly did tend to be less draconian than most state premiers have been in Australia. Here, things have indeed got bad and I don’t know that the arrangements have necessarily made all that much sense, but they never did quite go full retard as Dan did and continues to do in Victoria.

This will probably allow some, potentially quite a large number of people, to escape the vaccine mandates here. They may just have to wait the restrictions out. For instance, I recently receive a text from my employer that people who had stopped working (as was I guess possible in my case, though I was not aware of this possibility) could, now, come back to work.

HP

  • Fri, Oct 15, 2021 - 05:28am

    #8
    HPHovercraft

    HPHovercraft

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 31 2021

    Posts: 171

    count placeholder1

    So sorry NSW

I seem to have got around the block with the last two posts, so you don’t have to try to find my post at the end of the other thread I linked to in post#6 above.

The rest of my post was:

More permanent mandates

More worrying are the mandates that, for instance, teachers are facing, which look much more permanent and so don’t seem to fit with this temporary restriction on movement narrative.

Any thoughts @adaley5 or @forest8?

Even then, it does seem as thought the tide is turning in terms of the evidence regarding the vaccines, for instance, coming out of places like Israel and the UK, so again it may be just a matter of time. Of course, it is not entirely obvious what the reaction to this evidence will be.

HP

  • Fri, Oct 15, 2021 - 05:58am

    #8
    Ian Day

    Ian Day

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 30 2020

    Posts: 3

    count placeholder6

    So sorry NSW

To all the people that are part of the Peak Prosperity Family. I have been forced by my own “Democratic Government” to accept being a 2nd class citizen for goodness knows how long as I refuse to just be injected with an experimental unapproved jab. In NSW we have been trying to follow our Legal options to get our court system to review our Constitution & Laws and make decision based on what makes us a free people. Today one of our Judges in a challenge from the people against our own government took the low road of doing as told by our Government. Why would I think this? This Judge was allocated to this case by one of the participants in the trial on the 21st of August. Oh that’s right imagine been able to run your own court case where you get to choose your favourite judge. This is what happened to Australians today. This week in NSW I was personally advised in writing by my own Doctors surgery that if I wanted medical treatment and was not vaccinated I would be treasted in the carpart of the surgery. I challenged this under the NSW Human Rights Act of 1986 where you cannot be discriminated against based on your Medical Record, I had to threatened legal action to get them to reverse this decision. I am disgusted to be a 2nd class citizen as a 7th Generation Australian. Thank you to everyone in the world for supporting us in Australia, I can tell you that life for anyone deciding not to accept this medical experiment is becoming very difficult. God help us!

  • Fri, Oct 15, 2021 - 07:32am

    #9
    Aus

    Aus

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 26 2020

    Posts: 65

    count placeholder0

    So sorry NSW

its a lost cause it seems, who will be the survivors?

@ian-day

Hi Ian,

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks for the additional data points. We had been wondering just how the judiciary were going to react here:

medical practitioners in Brisbane? [peakprosperity.com]

and here:

Rumours of a Legal Victory Against a Vaccine Mandate in NSW Australia

As some of the lawyers that we have been listening to have said, it does look like it was going to boil down to politics.

HP

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

Login or Register to post comments