Mandates: “Sovereignty, as per the ICCPR, is the bedrock of human rights.”

The statement

“At its core, this issue is not about vaccines. It’s not even about Covid-19. This issue is about the
checks and balances which are supposed to measure and mitigate the Government’s uses of
power, particularly when they infringe on individual citizens’ human rights.”

The source

Open letter to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s ‘relatively new’ Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, from lawyer Peter Fam of Maat’s Method and Julian Gillespie QC. Dated 27 June 2022 https://www.maatsmethod.com.au/post/australian-human-rights-commission-failed-to-perform-their-statutory-function-during-covid-19

My take on it

The letter itself is 14 pages. Exceptional, by any standard. It is well worth the read.

Two Annexures take the total to 314 pages. If evidence mattered, it would be more than enough.

I would describe the document as a chronicle of systemic failures by key agencies and authority figures charged with protecting our health, welfare and personal rights.

Like the authors, and like so many Australians, I await a response that is worthy of the questions raised.

Freedom of Thought, and Freedom of Speech: indispensable conditions of a free society

The statement

“It is hard to overstate the importance of this subject. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech have been bracketed together as indispensable conditions of a free society: Palko v Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) at 327. But thought precedes speech; therefore, of the two, freedom of thought must be seen as the most fundamental.”

The source

Parker J in the NSW Supreme Court last week.

(Thiab v Western Sydney University [2022] NSWSC 760, https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18146167eb6f3e4b72e1a807)

(posted on Telegram by solicitor Peter Fam, https://t.me/thepeterfamtelegram/129)

My take on it

The context is that a Nurse’s placements were all cancelled after she simply expressed a divergent view about Covid-19 to some supervisors. The Court found that s35 of the Western Sydney University Act 1997 precluded the University from discriminating against her by blocking her progression through her degree on the basis of her “political affiliations, views or beliefs”. Most Universities around the country have equivalent enacting statutes. The Court was scathing of the internal disciplinary process that had preceded the case, and the staff members who ran it.

It is a sad but not novel irony that academic institutions should manifest as protectors of orthodoxy rather than of independent thought.

It is a further irony that in this case the thoughts and speech related to defence of a more primary freedom than either of those, ie personal safety.

Masking: No pro’s, just cons

The statement

“More Than a Dozen Credible Medical Studies Prove Face Masks Do Not Work Even In Hospitals!

The medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.”

The source

Arthur Firstenberg writing in Vision Launch Media (August 15, 2020)

( https://visionlaunch.com/more-than-a-dozen-credible-medical-studies-prove-face-masks-do-not-work-even-in-hospitals/ )
 

My take on it

First, the pro’s.

The main argument used to support masking as a public health measure is that they stop or significantly impede transmission of the virus from one person to another.The science does not support that argument.

I have also heard NSW Chief Medical Officer Kerry Chant say words to the effect that (notwithstanding the case against them) masks are still helpful as a reminder to the public to be on their guard. In all the circumstances that statement is ignorant, insensitive, and condescending. And against the public interest..

The cons?

Expired air is a waste product of bodily function. As Martin Geddes pointed out, to re-breathe our expired air makes as much sense as eating our own scat, or drinking our own urine or sweat.

Atmospheric air contains about 20.9% oxygen.  Expired air contains about 16%.  Atmospheric air contains about 0.04% (400ppm) carbon dioxide.  Expired air contains 4%, a hundred times more.

So the re-breathing of our expired air deprives our bodies of life-sustaining oxygen, and intoxicates them with CO2. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Some of my earlier posts indicate how bad.

And then there are the adverse impacts on social interaction, and particularly on childhood formation.

For a more detailed treatment , may I recommend The Case Against Masking by Dr Judy Mikovits.