Extreme Government Overreach in Victoria

Written by: Dominica Funnell Digital Reporter

Premier Daniel Andrews has announced a sweeping COVID-19 vaccine mandate for authorised workers across Victoria in a bid to stay on track with his roadmap to freedom and reopen on October 26.

All authorised workers across the state will be required to have received at least one dose of a vaccine by Friday, October 15 in order to keep working.

Read Full Article Here

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on telegram
Telegram
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email

Related Stories

Responses

  1. It it obvious that the jab is causing any increase in hospital attendance. It is also obvious that 240 days in lockdown with our liberties removed has nothing to do with effective health care.

  2. With a 99.5% recovery rate in Australia, but with >550 deaths from the jab, the correct science is not being followed contrary to the Premier stating “The science is what will get us through this.”

  3. Looking forward to seeing these illegal mandates challenged in court

    Constitutionally Inoculated to Resist Coercion

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-law/2021/07/constitutionally-inoculated-to-resist-coercion/

    Australian High Court Rules The Constitution BANS Mandatory Vaccination

    Australian constitution Section 51.23a, no form of any medical procedure can be forced upon you, without your consent & without your WILL.

    https://principia-scientific.com/australian-high-court-rules-the-constitution-bans-mandatory-vaccination/

    Australian High Court Rules The Constitution BANS Mandatory Vaccination

    Australian constitution Section 51.23a, no form of any medical procedure can be forced upon you, without your consent & without your WILL.

    Constitutionally Inoculated to Resist Coercion

    https://principia-scientific.com/australian-high-court-rules-the-constitution-bans-mandatory-vaccination/

    “In other words, no Australian government, either federal or state, or those acting on its behalf, is constitutionally authorised to force any individual to take medicament against his or her own will, or force them or their children to be, among other things, compulsorily vaccinated”

    1. Mark, I know what the word mandatory means but I am a bit confused
      about Andrews mandatory rules, when they haven’t been brought
      into law. Are you able to make this a bit clearer?

      1. I couldn’t make it any clearer, but looking around he country over the past 18 months, so many of the “mandates” made by states, like wearing masks in cars when you’re alone, have been as clear as mud with regard to the “science” that is supposed to support these decisions, it seems to be all about control on their part

        However I have read and heard about legal challenges that are being finalised to challenge these “mandates”, hopefully they will be filed soon

  4. All Andrews is interested in is power and control. Today I watched a
    funeral that was streamed. This was the funeral of friends of ours
    for over sixty years. It was distressing to see this family (only 10
    allowed) put their Mum and Dad to rest after Mum and Dad were
    killed in a car accident.

  5. This dreadful man is not a leader. He is a gaulieter, and the Victorian people need to remove him. He has destroyed your State, your businesses and your livelihoods for a virus with 99.9% recovery rate. How is that even remotely acceptable?

  6. His time will come, hopefully sooner than later, and we will keep up the pressure and the noise, and get in his face and deny his dictating mandates with our defiance. He’s really pissed off a LOT of people now.  Hopefully Vicpol will turn on him too, as is happening in NSW and overseas.

  7. Is it time to start alternative healthcare and other facilities… no idea how, but this new system may not go away!

  8. His days are surely numbered. The mandate is not lawful as such as it is only valid for the duration of the order. As it stands the emergency powers expire on the 16th December as this would represent a maximum continuous period of use of 21 months which is the maximum the current legislation enables.
    It it now debatable whether he can firstly extend these, and even have the numbers to so as there would be many within his own party that will soon need to go into self preservation mode given the state election next year. If these measures cannot be extended beyond that date, then this mandate as he alludes to would also disappear with it. He is now clutching onto straws and trying everything he can to scare people into taking a jab. The sheer notion itself is really so unethical and unfair that it will most certainly be subject to a supreme court challenge in the coming weeks.
    The current legislation where these powers have been introduced is the Health and Well Being Act 2008
    There is protection there available or there will be as of the 1st November when the rapid test kits will be available for home use by anybody, vaccinated or not.
    Section 112 of that act states that when issuing a public health order the least restrictive measure must be adopted.
    Until now there has been no real way of producing a quick negative Covid test, but with the introduction of these kits to be widely available for purchase, then it is clear that a case could be put to the courts on the above and section 123 of that same act which reads that any enforcement of such order cannot be done with the use of force.
    The use of force does not necessarily have to imply the physical use of force, but could be interpreted as such that the mandating of a jab which is voluntary, but conditional on one maintaining employment could easily be viewed as the use of force and contrary to section 112 as not being the least restrictive measure available.
    On the basis of the above if it could be shown to the court that one could firstly use one of these rapid test kits, which would show a negative test in a matter of minutes, and this could be used as a condition of employment to show that you are not a threat to the workplace and the community as our premier put it, then the court would more than likely accept this as the least restrictive measure available, and not the uptake of a Covid injection, which in this instance through an unnecessary mandate could be viewed as a use of force and not the least restrictive measure available.
    Of course the real question that would arise after such an outcome would be that an unvaccinated person with a negative test in the workplace would then be at risk from a vaccinated person within that same work place as they would not be subjected to the same test, but can still spread Covid and as such make that work place unsafe and open up another can of worms in relation to safety in the work place.
    This is the way to turn this issue on its head.