"It all sounds very blackpilt, doesn't it? It all sounds absolutely hopeless. But one thing I would encourage people to take a lot of encouragement from so much of what they do and we're seeing that currently in Richard D halls case it's about controlling us. It's about controlling our in this case, access to information. So the question is why? Why do they spend so much time and effort and money Trying to control us? Or the point that the? The obvious answer and the clear answer is that because they are scared of us. They're frightened of us Because, in reality, we have all the power. They have none. Their entire Globalist structures are a facade. They're based upon our belief in their authority. So we allow them to tell us what to do. Now, the moment that we, in significant numbers, stop doing that and ignore them and no longer allow them to tell us what to do, it is over it. That's finished. They've lost because they cannot control 8 billion people. The only way they can do it is through trickery, propaganda, coercion and force. And if it comes down to force, if push, you know, so be it. And regrettably, and let's hope it never does. But if they've pushed does come to shove, they cannot defeat 7.8 billion people. They lose, they always lose. So their whole Game is a charade. And once we understand that they have no power, they have no authority, we have it all and then we can start."
Finally! A court that is willing to do the right thing. Too bad it’s too late for the vaxx-injured (and vaxx-deceased). I hope this ruling paves the way for victims who took the jab against their will in order to feed their families to be compensated, and I especially hope that it sets a precedent that this kind of tyrannical behavior will not be tolerated from our governments and their unelected bureaucrats.
It was in every instance a violation of the Nuremberg Code, and in the USA, at least, federal laws against coercion in health care. To say not a breach of human rights is nonsense.
Please don’t shoot the messenger, Jeck. I am simply advising what the Queensland court ruled based on the relevant Queensland legislation. (Not a US court; and anyway Australia does not have a national bill of rights.) The details are described in the link posted and the judgement can be downloaded in full.
Not aimed at you so much as at any and every government official and agency and health care professional that pretends the Nuremberg Code and the inalienable rights it codifies are irrelevant or doesn't exist, all of whom stand as a terrifying modern day example of how humans of today - all around the world - are as capable of evil as were the German citizenry of Nazi Germany.
Thanks. I'm not sure of the legal status of the Nuremberg Code in Australian law (where we don't have 'inalienable rights' at all. Of course, I understand the significance of the code morally and ethically ... but that's another matter. The reason that this court case was in Queensland is that the state does in fact have a Human Rights Act in its state law ... several other states do not have such statutes, and the Commonwealth of Australia doesn't either. I think that - legally - a right is only an inalienable right if it's some enshrined in the law of he land. (Clearly) I am not a lawyer, so this may be incorrect, but I recall people who wished to not get vaccinated being forced to quit their job instead and appealing to their rights to decide what happened to their bodies was unsuccessful. There has been a fair bit of discussion about the Nuremberg Code, of course, and if it actually provided people with the right to refuse, I'm pretty sure someone would have tested that in a court by now. They haven't, as far as I am aware.
That’s the problem. Although the Australian governments (and, following their national cabinet process, state governments) behaved improperly, they did not behave *unlawfully* in encouraging widespread vaccination without requiring (fully) informed consent. It is only possible to be ruled unlawful if there is a law that is broken. The Nuremberg Code is a code - not a law.
I guess that’s an example of why it is said that “the law is an ass”.
So it was illegal, when comes the punishment? If you or I break the law, we can reasonably expect some sanction, what’s going to happen to Katerina Carroll?
I am not a lawyer. However, I think it depends on the relevant Act. Some provide for penalties (including punishments, eg) but in this case I think the judgement is that, because the actions were unlawful, people are not obliged to adhere to them and they should be withdrawn. That does not mean that a person must be punished necessarily. (People can do things unlawfully because they were ill-advised or because they were unaware of something. It’s still unlawful but whether it’s punishable depends on the Act. That’s partly what is meant, I think, by following the Rule of Law) The full judgement is available online and I don’t think sanctions are suggested, but only that unlawful decrees do not need to be followed and indeed should be withdrawn.
The Queen Lands Supreme Court gave a little hope albeit late. It should be a crime for the government to force anyone to get an experimental shot that they call a vaccine. All elected or unelected officials that pushed this shot on the public should be charged with murder
For those interested in the subtleties of the law and the implications of this finding, an excellent source is Peter Fam's substack post, which includes a thorough video explainer of the result, especially helpful for non-lawyers to understand this case: https://maatsmethod.substack.com/p/015-qld-supreme-court-finds-vaccine? (He is a lawyer, well-versed and specialising in cases of this kind and pandemic issues generally in Australia.)
Good news because we are not getting any in Canada these days......
From Canada Proud: #ElectionNow
More details of Trudeau's censorship plot emerge Earlier this week the Trudeau Liberals introduced the latest iteration of their so-called Online Harms Bill to censor the internet.
And more details are coming out.
One provision of the bill would allow Trudeau's attorney general to place you under HOUSE ARREST if someone fears that they WILL commit a hate crime.
In other words, you can be confined to your house by Trudeau's underlings for an imaginary crime you haven't yet committed.
Don't believe us?
Here's the text of the bill:
"A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit (a) an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.1); or (b) an offence under section 320.1001."
At which point an accused person can be forced to: "Wear an electronic monitoring device" "Return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times" "Provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance" "Abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance."
So if you're so much as ACCUSED of intending to commit hate speech in the future by one of Trudeau's activists, Trudeau's attorney general can make you wear an ankle bracelet, confine you to your home, violate your bodily autonomy and prohibit you from communicating with people.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH IN MODERN CANADIAN HISTORY And that's why we're working daily to put an end to this government. We're currently running a MASSIVE pressure campaign against the NDP to make them END THEIR ALLIANCE with the Trudeau Liberals and FORCE AN ELECTION.
But if we want to defeat the Trudeau Liberals before they succeed in their censorship agenda, we need your support. https://canadaproud.org/donate/
No, it doesn’t. Canada here. We have our own Constitution. We are an independent country. Suggesting that a ruling in one Westminster system effects all is nonsensical. Your premise is like saying the USA must follow any Republic structured country’s ruling. Stick to medicine and data. You know nothing about our political system, sovereignty and very little about politics. Stay in your lane.
The real question is,where were the lawyers and unions when the mandates were happening to prevent people from getting jabbed in the first place? When people's God given rights were being abused and violated I didn't hear one peep from anyone.Some lives were lost and most others have been injured whether they know it or not.What a world we live in.
"It all sounds very blackpilt, doesn't it? It all sounds absolutely hopeless. But one thing I would encourage people to take a lot of encouragement from so much of what they do and we're seeing that currently in Richard D halls case it's about controlling us. It's about controlling our in this case, access to information. So the question is why? Why do they spend so much time and effort and money Trying to control us? Or the point that the? The obvious answer and the clear answer is that because they are scared of us. They're frightened of us Because, in reality, we have all the power. They have none. Their entire Globalist structures are a facade. They're based upon our belief in their authority. So we allow them to tell us what to do. Now, the moment that we, in significant numbers, stop doing that and ignore them and no longer allow them to tell us what to do, it is over it. That's finished. They've lost because they cannot control 8 billion people. The only way they can do it is through trickery, propaganda, coercion and force. And if it comes down to force, if push, you know, so be it. And regrettably, and let's hope it never does. But if they've pushed does come to shove, they cannot defeat 7.8 billion people. They lose, they always lose. So their whole Game is a charade. And once we understand that they have no power, they have no authority, we have it all and then we can start."
Iain Davis, from
https://subtlecain.substack.com/p/interview-iain-davis
We the people.🙏💥🙌🏼
Critical mass is growing. Then we will see change.
Finally! A court that is willing to do the right thing. Too bad it’s too late for the vaxx-injured (and vaxx-deceased). I hope this ruling paves the way for victims who took the jab against their will in order to feed their families to be compensated, and I especially hope that it sets a precedent that this kind of tyrannical behavior will not be tolerated from our governments and their unelected bureaucrats.
Not quite. It was unlawful but not a breach of human rights. A good summary is at https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/covid-vaccine-mandates-unlawful-but?
It was in every instance a violation of the Nuremberg Code, and in the USA, at least, federal laws against coercion in health care. To say not a breach of human rights is nonsense.
Please don’t shoot the messenger, Jeck. I am simply advising what the Queensland court ruled based on the relevant Queensland legislation. (Not a US court; and anyway Australia does not have a national bill of rights.) The details are described in the link posted and the judgement can be downloaded in full.
Not aimed at you so much as at any and every government official and agency and health care professional that pretends the Nuremberg Code and the inalienable rights it codifies are irrelevant or doesn't exist, all of whom stand as a terrifying modern day example of how humans of today - all around the world - are as capable of evil as were the German citizenry of Nazi Germany.
Thanks. I'm not sure of the legal status of the Nuremberg Code in Australian law (where we don't have 'inalienable rights' at all. Of course, I understand the significance of the code morally and ethically ... but that's another matter. The reason that this court case was in Queensland is that the state does in fact have a Human Rights Act in its state law ... several other states do not have such statutes, and the Commonwealth of Australia doesn't either. I think that - legally - a right is only an inalienable right if it's some enshrined in the law of he land. (Clearly) I am not a lawyer, so this may be incorrect, but I recall people who wished to not get vaccinated being forced to quit their job instead and appealing to their rights to decide what happened to their bodies was unsuccessful. There has been a fair bit of discussion about the Nuremberg Code, of course, and if it actually provided people with the right to refuse, I'm pretty sure someone would have tested that in a court by now. They haven't, as far as I am aware.
https://www.fhi360.org/sites/all/libraries/webpages/fhi-retc2/Resources/nuremburg_code.pdf
The Nuremberg Code is not law.
An important dominoe.
They should also declare the AU government as unlawful!
That’s the problem. Although the Australian governments (and, following their national cabinet process, state governments) behaved improperly, they did not behave *unlawfully* in encouraging widespread vaccination without requiring (fully) informed consent. It is only possible to be ruled unlawful if there is a law that is broken. The Nuremberg Code is a code - not a law.
I guess that’s an example of why it is said that “the law is an ass”.
So it was illegal, when comes the punishment? If you or I break the law, we can reasonably expect some sanction, what’s going to happen to Katerina Carroll?
I am not a lawyer. However, I think it depends on the relevant Act. Some provide for penalties (including punishments, eg) but in this case I think the judgement is that, because the actions were unlawful, people are not obliged to adhere to them and they should be withdrawn. That does not mean that a person must be punished necessarily. (People can do things unlawfully because they were ill-advised or because they were unaware of something. It’s still unlawful but whether it’s punishable depends on the Act. That’s partly what is meant, I think, by following the Rule of Law) The full judgement is available online and I don’t think sanctions are suggested, but only that unlawful decrees do not need to be followed and indeed should be withdrawn.
The Queen Lands Supreme Court gave a little hope albeit late. It should be a crime for the government to force anyone to get an experimental shot that they call a vaccine. All elected or unelected officials that pushed this shot on the public should be charged with murder
When justice requires hours, the courts are always years away.
Thank you GOD & all those who stood tall in their beliefs of medical freedom ...
How much would you pay to see Jacinda hang after trial for Nuremberg Code Violations?
Bonus, you get to see his trial...
Deblasio?
Birx and Fauci, doubleheader?
For those interested in the subtleties of the law and the implications of this finding, an excellent source is Peter Fam's substack post, which includes a thorough video explainer of the result, especially helpful for non-lawyers to understand this case: https://maatsmethod.substack.com/p/015-qld-supreme-court-finds-vaccine? (He is a lawyer, well-versed and specialising in cases of this kind and pandemic issues generally in Australia.)
Good news because we are not getting any in Canada these days......
From Canada Proud: #ElectionNow
More details of Trudeau's censorship plot emerge Earlier this week the Trudeau Liberals introduced the latest iteration of their so-called Online Harms Bill to censor the internet.
And more details are coming out.
One provision of the bill would allow Trudeau's attorney general to place you under HOUSE ARREST if someone fears that they WILL commit a hate crime.
In other words, you can be confined to your house by Trudeau's underlings for an imaginary crime you haven't yet committed.
Don't believe us?
Here's the text of the bill:
"A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit (a) an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.1); or (b) an offence under section 320.1001."
At which point an accused person can be forced to: "Wear an electronic monitoring device" "Return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times" "Provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance" "Abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance."
So if you're so much as ACCUSED of intending to commit hate speech in the future by one of Trudeau's activists, Trudeau's attorney general can make you wear an ankle bracelet, confine you to your home, violate your bodily autonomy and prohibit you from communicating with people.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH IN MODERN CANADIAN HISTORY And that's why we're working daily to put an end to this government. We're currently running a MASSIVE pressure campaign against the NDP to make them END THEIR ALLIANCE with the Trudeau Liberals and FORCE AN ELECTION.
But if we want to defeat the Trudeau Liberals before they succeed in their censorship agenda, we need your support. https://canadaproud.org/donate/
No, it doesn’t. Canada here. We have our own Constitution. We are an independent country. Suggesting that a ruling in one Westminster system effects all is nonsensical. Your premise is like saying the USA must follow any Republic structured country’s ruling. Stick to medicine and data. You know nothing about our political system, sovereignty and very little about politics. Stay in your lane.
Let's hope other states will follow suit - when will this all end 🤦🏻♀️
The real question is,where were the lawyers and unions when the mandates were happening to prevent people from getting jabbed in the first place? When people's God given rights were being abused and violated I didn't hear one peep from anyone.Some lives were lost and most others have been injured whether they know it or not.What a world we live in.