Australian government has gone tyrannical

Just applying for a religious exemption is playing into their hands. Some lefty, college "educated" HR goon is probably having an orgasm right now thinking of the big red, "DENIED" rubber stamp she is gonna smash on your religious documents. Even if they do decide to be nice and "accept" your beliefs, why is some HR floozy or manager in any position to judge said beliefs? Either way, you are legitimizing this new normal.

Okay then it would be good if there is a better way to go about this.
 

doodydota

Sparrow
With all sympathy for the Australians. I am not blaming the abuse victims, I am really not. I just don't understand how you get caught off guard when you're in the park and see 20 cops approaching? What you have to do is stop munching on your sandwitch, and get away now!
Seems to me, those victims are learning the hard way, that government is not "for the people", but a monopoly on aggression and cops are enforcers and will escalate until you're dead. If you weren't brainwashed, you wouldn't just sit there, because "it's your right".
 

Parmesan

Woodpecker
Okay then it would be good if there is a better way to go about this.
I mean if you have a family to feed and such, it's obviously your call. My take... Just ignore them for as long as you can. Don't respond with any written communication. When they confront you about it, just say something like, you don't release personal medical information, or don't believe it's their place to judge your beliefs, avoid being overtly political or offensive. Refuse signing anything or crafting statements all the way until they fire you. This will make the process as difficult as possible of them, and maximize your potential for any type of legal action or unemployment benefits if it all possible.
 

MRAll134

Pelican
Medical exemption, religious exemption, breach of OH&S laws, no federal laws passed, Australian constitution ignored. Got em all lined up thanks brother. I don’t particularly want to go with the medical or religious exemptions first up (and our union said they would “support us” with the medical exemption). Because the way I figure it, the hospital will simply say, ok Gary, we acknowledge your medical exemption and we will still honour your role as an employee here, however because you are unvaccinated and pose a risk to everyone else on the wards, you can no longer perform your normal duties in the area where you’ve been working for the past 7 years. So we’ve had to relocate you to a “safer” area of the hospital, now enjoy your new role out the back working in the cold emptying the rubbish bins for the rest of your miserable days here. I’d rather take them on from with the whole unlawful and unsafe (material safety data sheets etc), approach.
Here is an example of a successful appeal for a religious exemption. Just needs paragraph breaks, put into one's own words:

 

Laus Deo

Robin
Orthodox
More white pill. NSW has effectively said that the unjabbed will only have to hold out for 5-6 weeks longer than jabbed to have the same “freedoms”. The jabbed have been played off a break without most of them realising it.

Again the weak ones will struggle to hold out for another 5-6 minutes let alone weeks so this will act as an incentive with them. But for those of us with God in our lives it’s challenge gladly accepted. Barring a backtrack, there will be no jab apartheid in NSW by December 1.

Note however that Deadly Dan immediately said the unjabbed would not have the same freedoms anytime soon.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has revealed the state’s road map out of lockdown, saying regional travel and community sport are due to resume within weeks.

The state will move to the first stage of a three-phase plan to ease restrictions on October 11, the Monday after NSW is projected to reach 70 per cent vaccination coverage.

It is projected NSW will reach 80 per cent coverage a few weeks later, when further freedoms will be allowed.

The final stage of the plan will allow unvaccinated people the same freedoms as the rest of society from December 1.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...road-map-out-of-lockdown-20210927-p58v1c.html
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
More white pill. NSW has effectively said that the unjabbed will only have to hold out for 5-6 weeks longer than jabbed to have the same “freedoms”. The jabbed have been played off a break without most of them realising it.

Again the weak ones will struggle to hold out for another 5-6 minutes let alone weeks so this will act as an incentive with them. But for those of us with God in our lives it’s challenge gladly accepted. Barring a backtrack, there will be no jab apartheid in NSW by December 1.

Note however that Deadly Dan immediately said the unjabbed would not have the same freedoms anytime soon.


https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...road-map-out-of-lockdown-20210927-p58v1c.html
That's just a bait to calm down the masses a little bit so they don't actually start a revolution. Similar to how they "reopened" UK, yet everyone knows even more brutal lockdowns are coming this year as they rig some more PCR tests.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
From another forum :

"New South Wales (one of Australias biggest states - where Sydney is located for reference) has announced that on Dec.1 the unvaccinated will have the same rights and freedoma as the vaccinated.

This is a complete 180 and came out of nowhere, but it seems to be coming off the back of a massive Supreme Court case which is being heard this week (Sep 28,30 Oct.1)

The case features multiple enormous civil lawsuits and international experts (such as Geert Vanden Bossche) that are partaking in the case to support the anti-passport cause.

There's rumors going around that NSW has changed their tune on unvaccinated rights because they believe they may lose this court challenge and are being proactive

Some points of the prosecutions case

1.) The Passports are unconstitutional... they've identified a clause in the federal constitution that says "civil conscription" for "greater good" efforts don't involve medical procedures ... but there's some grey area here.

2.) They're alleging that the Health Minister Brad Hazzard has been issuing sweeping orders outside of his scope of practice

3.) The vaccines have "moderate" efficacy at best but passports won't improve health outcomes in any way (using expert testimony)

Brad Hazzard asked to have more time to respond to 3000 pages of expert evidence contradicting his recently imposed health edicts, but was denied by the Judge. He's had roughly 2 weeks to mount a response for tomorrow.

This week will be one of the biggest human rights cases in Commonwealth History and not many people realize it's even happening. Live stream will begin in roughly 14 hours here
"

Live in 14 hours :

 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member

Covid: Why NSW Premier was dragged into ‘mandatory vaccine’ lawsuit​

Two of the claims, brought by Al-Munir Kassam and Natasha Henry, are challenging rules which state that essential workers must receive a jab before leaving areas of concern.

Lawyers for Ms Henry appeared in the NSW Supreme Court late on Friday afternoon, seeking to subpoena the Department of Premier.

They raised comments made by Ms Berejiklian during an interview on Channel 9’s Today Show on September 1.

During the interview, the premier said: “Well firstly, we weren’t able to make the vaccines mandatory, it’s not in our power to do that.”

Barrister Jason Harkess, acting for Ms Henry, painted the quote as a “significant admission” by the government.

He sought to discover what legal advice was in front of Ms Berejiklian at that time.

“The critical element of the plaintiff’s claim in this case was that this government had no legal power to make a public health order requiring compulsory vaccinations of plaintiffs,” Dr Harkess said.

“To have the premier say on live television ‘we have no power’ begs the question what exactly is the information she had before her.”




Video here of her admission / confession :

 

Beacon

Robin

Covid: Why NSW Premier was dragged into ‘mandatory vaccine’ lawsuit​

Two of the claims, brought by Al-Munir Kassam and Natasha Henry, are challenging rules which state that essential workers must receive a jab before leaving areas of concern.

Lawyers for Ms Henry appeared in the NSW Supreme Court late on Friday afternoon, seeking to subpoena the Department of Premier.

They raised comments made by Ms Berejiklian during an interview on Channel 9’s Today Show on September 1.

During the interview, the premier said: “Well firstly, we weren’t able to make the vaccines mandatory, it’s not in our power to do that.”
Fight on all fronts! Courage and strength to the two plaintiffs! The government may use every dirty tactic they can but the righteous who stand up for good shall always stand tall among the vile.

Edit: There is a third plaintiff John Edward Larter (Cases of Interest Ref: 004/21), probably a paramedic who has filed against the government. Strength and courage to him too!
 
Last edited:
Top