There were two court cases held recently in New Zealand that found that COVID-19 Vaccinations were mandated for the purpose of ensuring Public confidence in the Police and Military Services rather than to stop the spread of COVID-19.
BAILEY v THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND [24 November 2021] and YARDLEY v THE MINISTER FOR WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SAFETY
Our fundamental right to choose whether or not we take a COVID-19 vaccine is up to the individual NOT the STATE.
Here in Western Australia Mark McGowan has stepped beyond the Authority of his Office and is coercing the People of Western Australia to comply with his unlawful mandates or they will lose their jobs, receive a fine, get arrested or become a social outcast. In Western Australia you cannot enter restaurants, pubs, library’s, schools etc, without a proof of vaccination certificate.
Police are targeting small businesses who are choosing not to discriminate and are arresting the business owners and are doing their best to close down small businesses. Topolinis, Earth Wholefoods and Bill who owns a shop at the Wanneroo Markets are examples of this.
Western Australian Police Shut Down Small Business for not wearing a mask. (bitchute.com)
I wanted to shed some hope on our dire situation and share this information with you, after-all New Zealand is regarded as another State of the Commonwealth of Australia 🙂
BAILEY v THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND
According to the www.courtsofnz.govt.nz the Order mandating vaccinations for Police and NZDF staff was imposed to ensure the continuity of the public services, and to promote public confidence in those services, rather than to stop the spread of COVID-19.
“…because the Omicron variant in particular is so transmissible. But that threat exists for both vaccinated and unvaccinated staff. I am not satisfied that the Order makes a material difference, including because of the expert evidence before the Court on the effects of vaccination on COVID-19 including the Delta and Omicron variants. BAILEY v THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 3168 [24 November 2021]
YARDLEY v THE MINISTER FOR WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SAFETLY
The nature of the claim
Justice Cooke upheld the applicants’ claims that two rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 had been limited by the mandate — the right to refuse a medical treatment under s 11, and the right to manifest religious beliefs under s 15.
The mandate limited the right to manifest religious beliefs as the Pfizer vaccine had at some point been tested on cells that had been derived from a human foetus, and requiring vaccination by such a vaccine was in conflict with the religious beliefs of some of the affected persons. The Court then considered whether this limitation upon fundamental rights was reasonable, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society as is required by s 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights.
Having considered the relevant factors it found that it was not. First, Justice Cooke concluded that the mandate affected only a small number of personnel. The evidence was that of an overall Police workforce of 15,682 the Order only affected 164 personnel who were unvaccinated when it came into effect, and an overall Defence workforce of 15,480 it only affected 115 personnel who were unvaccinated.
Secondly, Justice Cooke found that there was no evidence that these numbers would have been any different had the question of vaccination been left to the pre-existing vaccination policies already in existence for the Police and the Defence Force. In addition, there was no evidence that the Order had the effect of making personnel vaccinate or resign who would not otherwise have done so except for the Order.
Justice Cooke accepted that an effect on a small number of personnel could nevertheless involve a measure that was demonstrably justified if the evidence disclosed that there was risk to the continuity of Police and Defence Force services arising from this number of unvaccinated personnel. But, the expert evidence before the Court from Dr Petrovski for the applicants, and Dr Town the Ministry of Health’s Chief Science Adviser, did not establish this. Vaccination has a significant beneficial effect in limiting serious illness, hospitalisation, and death, including with the Omicron variant. But it was less effective in reducing infection and transmission of Omicron than had been the case with other variants of COVID-19. Justice Cooke concluded that there was no real evidence that the effect of the Order on the small number of personnel made any material difference to the continuity of Police or Defence Force services.
He concluded that Omicron did pose a threat to the continuity of workforces, including Police and Defence Force workforces because it was so transmissible, but that this was the case for the vaccinated as well as the unvaccinated. In those circumstances the Court found that the significant adverse effects for those Police and Defence Force personnel who faced termination meant that the measure was not a reasonable limit on their rights demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society in accordance with s5 of the Bill of Rights.
The Order was accordingly unlawful. The Order was set aside, and the applicants entitled to seek an award of Court costs. The Court’s orders are limited to the mandate relating to Police and Defence Force personnel and do not affect other mandates or the internal Police and Defence vaccination policies. Justice Cooke also specifically recorded that the Court’s conclusions did not involve questioning of the effectiveness of vaccination: I should make it clear what this case is not about. The Order being set aside in the present case was not implemented for the purposes of limiting the spread of Covid-19. Health advice was that such a further mandate was not needed for this purpose.
Neither should the Court’s conclusion be understood to question the effectiveness and importance of vaccination. The evidence shows that vaccination significantly improves the prospects of avoiding serious illness and death, even with the Omicron variant. It confirms the importance of a booster dose given the waning effect of the first two doses of the vaccine.
Justice Cooke
On a personal note, a Western Australian Police Officer, who was also a Mother died recently. Her loss is a tragedy, she was kind, caring, authentic and had a gift of making others feel at ease in her presence. She was a beacon of light.
I do not know whether she died as a result of taking a mandated COVID-19 vaccination, however I do know that she was a healthy woman in her forties and all Western Australian Police are required to take the COVID-19 Vaccine as part of their Private Employment contract.
Rest in Peace x
Recent Comments