The colony's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison broke the law, where he must be sued.
What happens when you (the serf) break the law?
If someone from the serf pool breaks the law and that action is made 'public' for example social media, or in the news, then the appropriate police force (federal/state) moves in to charge that person.
Well, the 'lovable' #ScottyFromMarketing broke the law and the police, the AFP (Australian Federal Police) in this case stood by idly.
It seems that they're enabling his criminal actions.
So what are they?
Civil conscription, AGAINST the Constitution, or more specifically Section 51 (xxxiiiA).
Note:
an injection or inoculation is a 'medical service',
civil conscription is telling the population what to do,
Doctor – patient relationship CANNOT be interfered with, period even by government,
IF consent is forced or withdrawn then it's assault (that being a criminal offence).
The general practitioner's case states that the government cannot provide ANY legal or practical compulsion (i.e. law (Act), directive, 'rule') for you to accept a medical procedure.
This means the Commonwealth CANNOT write any law to impose immunisation/vaccination upon the people of Australia.
What about the states?
Well, Western Australia states that it can do the opposite, i.e. make a law that states that people MUST succumb to a particular medical procedure.
According to the Constitution, Section 109 is in force.
Therefore ANY law that the state produces which is inconsistent with federal law is INVALID, and must be ignored.
Take note of Clause 5 of the Constitution:
Please note that the implementation of the Commonwealth tracing app and the various state named tracing apps, where a person is compelled to use them is an unlawful directive.
Breach of the Privacy Act, Section 94H, as well as other protections in Australia's consumer law come to mind.
Another part of Victorian law that must be adhered to is human rights, under the SARC (Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee), where all the checks and balances must take place.
"The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 provides that the Committee must consider any Bill introduced into Parliament and must report to the Parliament whether the Bill is incompatible with Human Rights."
See:
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/
See video:
See:
Melbourne University Law Review (approximately 30 pages):
Mendelson, Danuta --- "Devaluation of a Constitutional Guarantee: The History of Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Commonwealth Constitution" [1999] MelbULawRw 14; (1999) 23(2) Melbourne University Law Review 308
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1999/14.html
See also:
Medical law reporter:
Constitutional limits on Federal Legislation Practically Compelling Medical Employment:
Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment