We need now to go back to an event that happened in October 2021. The trial of Kassam vs Hazzard . The trial was conducted in the NSW Supreme Court and the crux of it was that representatives of the working classes of New South Wales took the government to court over vaccine mandates. This link contains the actual wording on one of the many Public Health Orders imposed by then health secretary Brad Hazzard (hence the case against him). Although anybody that has read the
UNESCO declaration on bioethics 2005 or the UN declaration on human rights or the Nuremberg Code or the Australian Constitution section 51.23a would realise that this order egregiously contravenes human rights and bioethics, the judge – Robert Beech-Jones – found in favour of the government, in a scenario reminiscent of those failed attempts to take on the Nazi regime through the court system during the Third Reich judiciary in 1933-1945.
On appeal, three judges concurred and stated:
“The principle of legality is not of universal application and the assistance to be gained from it varies widely: Three rights raised – the right to earn a living, right to privacy and right not to be discriminated against – are not ‘fundamental’ and are not engaged by the principle of legality. The other three rights raised – the
right to bodily integrity, the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination – did engage the principle of legality but were not infringed by the PHA orders.
I’ll just reiterate that. You have a right to bodily integrity, but if your employer or the government make a law that violates it, this obviously does not amount to an abrogation of that right. Right? So indeed, as predicted two years prior in a discussion of why a reasonable person would have expected Justice Beech-Jones to have recused himself from such a high profile case against the very government he was presumably looking to find favour with… He is appointed to the High Court of Australia with the following rather unfortunate Freudian headline: Crime pays for new High Court judge.1
And just to cement the validity of Robert Beech-Jones’ performance in putting the proletariat back into line in their mini-rebellion against the government (who of course are always correct), a glowing editorial is written in the UNSW Law journal espousing the correctness of Justice Beech-Jones’ reportedly independent and ethical viewpoint. Although this article concludes that vaccine coercion is both legally and morally justified, it acknowledges the right to refuse medical treatment, freedom of thought, conscience, and opinion, and the right to bodily integrity as important precepts deserving serious consideration.
So let’s get this straight. The right to bodily autonomy “deserves serious consideration”? Seriously? The right to bodily autonomy is no longer an overarching and immutable right in a Western Society? God forbid. So what’s going on there?
Well, what the authors of the article are telling you is that the precedent set by Robert Beech-Jones – which carries into every Commonwealth realm of law – means that they can use and reuse the same mandates idea for any situation that is deemed related to vaccination or the next manufactured pandemic. And it also means that the very same legalisation of mandates that was applied to gene therapy vaccines can also apply to gene editing therapies. Paradise for Eugenicists.
.
- https://archive.is/Xi6L1#selection-1921.0-1924.0 ↩︎