The Law

If the Will Were There to End Vaccine Mandates…

Australian politicians are trying to achieve the goal of full COVID-19 vaccination by scaring and threatening the population. Presently, the states are forcing Australians to get vaccinated or face job losses and the imposition of heavy fines. Some states and Territories have issued “health orders” mandating vaccination for numerous industries or workers. Prime Minister Scott Morrison tacitly endorses these mandatory vaccination orders, despite his earlier insistence that no one would be vaccinated against their will, as evidenced by his refusal to back the introduction of federal legislation that would effectively overturn the states’ ability to impose their will.

Pauline Hanson’s pro-choice bill, recently rejected in the Senate, would have prohibited states, territories and businesses from discriminating on the ground of vaccine status.  In a speech delivered remotely to the Senate, Hanson argued that those who opposed her pro-choice billweare “too bloody gutless to stand up for the people of Australia”.

We find it difficult to disagree. Fortunately, five Coalition senators agreed with Senator Hanson and were willing to cross the floor in order to protect Australians’ basic rights. For the record, these principled senators were Sam McMahon, Gerard Rennick, Matt Caravan, Alex Antic and Concetta Fierravanti-Wells.

We were surprised that Senator Eric Abetz did not cross the floor. In a press release, he argued that that he personally opposes vaccine mandates but had to abstain from voting on the grounds that Hanson’s bill was “clumsy and unlawful in that it is unconstitutional”.[1]

Senator Abetz then explained that, according to him,

the Bill … would seek to over-ride the states and stop funding to them if they mandate in any circumstance. Its constitutionality is highly questionable and the consequences highly disruptive

He also contended that the Federal government does not have power to override the states on vaccine mandates.

If this a problem, it is relatively easy to solve. A new draft bill could make sure the Commonwealth does not stop funding the states. As for his second objection, we are confident that the Commonwealth can rely on its external affairs power (some general background here) to enact legislation that can render state vaccine mandates constitutionally invalid.

The Australian Constitution, in its Section 51 (xxix), says:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to… (xxix) External affairs.

The rise and growth of international legal instruments has dramatically increased the significance of the external affairs power.  As the range of topics that can be regulated under s51(xxix) has expanded, this has confirmed the supremacy of the Commonwealth’s legislative powers at the expense of the powers of the Australian states.

Sir Harry Gibbs, a former Australian Chief Justice, explains that “it appears no exaggeration to say” that together with the regular operation of s. 109 (inconsistency) of the Constitution, the external affairs power has the potential to

annihilate State legislative power in virtually every respect.[2]

Section 109 of the Constitution provides that federal laws must prevail over those of a state to the extent of inconsistency. The State law is deemed invalid to the extent of such inconsistency. Situations of conflict between a state law and a federal law arise, for example, when:

(a) the State law cannot be obeyed at the same time as the federal law (Mabo v Queensland (1988) 166 CLR 186); (b) when the federal law permits a certain activity prohibited by a State law (Colvin v Bradley Bros Pty Ltd (1943) 68 CLR 151); (c) when a federal law confers a right which a State law seeks to remove (Clyde Engineering Co Ltd v Cowburn (1926) 37 CLR 466).

The Australian government has concluded  innumerable  treaties on a wide range of matters.  In R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936), the High Court made it very clear that the external affairs power is not restricted to the Commonwealth’s power to make laws with respect to the external aspects of the subjects mentioned in s. 51. This approach has allowed Commonwealth powers to be applied in areas never contemplated by the framers.

In this sense, the external affairs’ power have become a major weapon in the Commonwealth armoury. The Australian Treaties Database (ATD), an online resource of treaties signed or actioned by Australia, lists the many treaties Australia has entered into since Federation. As such, writes Professor George Williams, ‘the possible uses of the external affairs power remain enormous. The fact that it can be used to legislate in areas formerly under state control is, according to the long accepted approach of the High Court, irrelevant.[3]

The Federal government has successfully relied upon the external affairs power to support the enactment of a great number of laws over the years. Accordingly, the Morrison government could enact a law that prohibits mandatory vaccines pursuant to Australia’s ratification of several international law instruments thereby giving effect to these instruments. 

Accordingly, implementing these instruments through the external affairs power would be the basis on which the federal government could defend the constitutional validity of its pro-choice legislation if this was eventually challenged in the High Court. In this case, the Court would be able to decide that the relevant federal legislation is a constitutionally valid law with respect to the external affairs power. 

In 2009, in Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee,[4] Chief Justice French and Justice Gummow held that civil conscription is a “compulsion or coercion in the legal and practical sense, to carry out work or provide [medical] services”.[5] Justice Kirby opined that the purpose of prohibiting this conscription was to ensure that the relationship between medical practitioner and patient was governed by contract where that is the intention of the parties. For him the test whether civil conscription has been imposed is “whether the impugned regulation, by its details and burdens, intrudes impermissibly into the private consensual arrangements between the providers of medical and dental services and the individual recipients of such services.”[6]

This view is supported by an international instrument, the Nuremberg Code, which is an ethics code relied upon in 1947 during the Nazi doctors’ trials in Nuremberg. This Code has as its first principle the willingness and informed consent by the individual to receive medical treatment or to participate in an experiment. However, it has been argued in an AAP FactCheck that an attempt “to apply the code to COVID-19 vaccines is incorrect and misleading.”[7] It notes that the Nuremberg Code only addresses human medical experimentation and does not apply to “approved vaccines”.

The AAP FastCheck analysis turns on the fact that COVID vaccines do not officially involve human experimentation, but instead have been approved – in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration – for emergency use. However, it is precisely the experimental nature of the vaccines and the widespread disagreement about the capacity of vaccines to provide protection against the virus that is responsible for the lack of confidence in their effectiveness. Indeed, in a climate of uncertainty, characterised by a demonstrable lack of confidence, as is amply demonstrated by the vaccine hesitancy in Australia, a programme of mandatory vaccination cannot be regarded as consensual. The unvaccinated, in relying on health implications for the purpose of refusing the vaccine, may thus ironically invoke the same argument used by proponents of vaccinations, who also rely on health grounds to promote the vaccine. In this context, legal academic Dr Rocco Loiacono states:

For any government either by itself or via corporate proxy to attempt to mandate vaccines in circumstances were there has not been adequate testing and analysis of risks as well as benefits would constitute not only a violation of the principle of informed consent … but a violation of Australia’s obligations under international law with respect to medical experimentation.[8]

One of the most frustrating things surrounding the contentious vaccine debate is the existence of many different and inconsistent opinions and advice. A person may be told by one specialist doctor that AstraZeneca is a potentially unsafe vaccine, compared with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Other professionals may point to the negligible risk of taking the AstraZeneca jab compared with its huge potential benefits. Clearly, if the medical advice given is not consistently conveyed by the medical fraternity, it is no wonder that people lose confidence in the effectiveness of these vaccines and exhibit vaccine hesitancy.

This lack of confidence is exacerbated when one considers the standards that vaccines should exhibit but fail to meet. There are at least five medical requirements that need to be met: (i) the vaccine must result in a measurable reduction in the number of sick people afflicted with the COVID-19 virus, (ii) the vaccine must be capable of protecting recipients for a significant time, thereby possibly avoiding booster shots, (iii) the vaccine should have few negative side effects, (iv) the vaccine must be effective against newer variants of the virus, and (v) the vaccine must substantially reduce transmission rates. There are four logistical requirements: (i) a low cost to produce the vaccine, (ii) the vaccine can be produced quickly on the required scale, (iii) the vaccine can be efficiently distributed, and (iv) it is easy to administer. Perhaps the most important, and final, requirement is that the public, medical professionals, and politicians confidently trust the vaccine.

It goes without saying that compulsory vaccination adversely affects the democratic principle of equality before the law. Australians are facing serious restrictions of rights and freedoms that violate the democratic principle of equality before the law. In Leeth v Commonwealth,[9] Justice Deane and Justice Toohey referred to the Preamble to the Australian Constitution to support their view that the principle of equality is embedded impliedly in the Constitution. They argued that “the essential or underlying theoretical equality of all persons under the law and before the courts is and has been a fundamental and generally beneficial doctrine of the common law and a basic prescript of the administration of justice under our system of government.”[10]

It is also worth approaching the matter from the perspective of the dignity and privacy of individuals. Governments should avoid relying on the parens patriae doctrine according to which government will decide what is good for people as this would remove any sense of individual responsibility (and human dignity). This governmental approach violates international human rights law; it certainly contradicts the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Elaborated under the auspices of Eleanor Roosevelt and her commission, when she summed up the attitude of the framers, Roosevelt explained that this historical piece of international legislation was based on the expectation that everyone must have freedom in which to individually develop their “full stature and through common effort to raise the level of human dignity”.[11]

Ratifying an international agreement allows the Commonwealth government to legislate domestically to incorporate anti-mandatory vaccination under the external affairs power. The legislation would have to meet the specificity and conformity requirements. However, Australia entering an international agreement is all that is necessary to meet this requirement. In the Tasmanian Dam Case[12] and subsequent cases, the High Court has stated that “[t]he existence of international character or international concern is established by entry by Australia into the Convention or treaty”.[13] 

As can be seen, the very fact that Australia has ratified a treaty or international legal agreement will be sufficient to satisfy any requirement of “international character”. What is more, in Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, Justice Heydon  observed that “[t]he treaty or commitment need not have the precision necessary to establish a legally enforceable agreement at common law, but it must avoid excessive generality”.[14]

In the Preamble of the World Health Organisation’s Constitution, the word “health” is conceptualised as a “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. However, to fight the coronavirus the Australian governments have adopted measures that have caused millions of people to endure deeply stressful and traumatic situations, including home confinement, job losses, financial ruin, and a whole host of mental illnesses.

These measures are unlawful under international law because they affect non-derogable rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, association, movement, expression, and privacy. Of course, international law recognises that, during extraordinary circumstances, the states may enact emergency powers that suspend ordinary rule-of-law protections. However, there are “non-derogable rights” and the inalienability of these rights has been acknowledged by the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘Siracusa Principles’). A document produced by the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists, the Siracusa Principles, declares that

No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude … the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.[15]

Australian governments are now starting to impose vaccination mandates that treat the vaccinated differently to the unvaccinated. In practice, this means that unvaccinated individuals have less opportunities to get a job, to travel and to socialise , and even to go to a cafeteria. This segregationist approach creates an atrocious two-tier society that is unsupported by the Nuremberg Code.

Informed consent is the voluntary agreement by an individual to a proposed medical treatment, given only after sufficient information about potential risks and benefits, including possible adverse effects, are provided. From the perspective of public international law, informed consent is the bedrock principle of ethical standards in medicine. According to Article 6(1) of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005):

Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

As can be seen, international law instruments prohibit the removal of non-derogable rights even in situations of an alleged “emergency”, including the right to informed consent when it comes to vaccination. This prohibition encompasses any form of compulsion subjecting individuals to mandatory medical or pharmaceutical service, including vaccination.

While the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘ICESCR’), contains no definition of health, the United Nations’ Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights communicates that the right to health contains both fundamental freedoms and entitlements. These freedoms include ‘the right to control one’s health and body’, and “the right to be free from interference non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation”.[16]  

Under article 2(1) of ICESCR, Australia must take the necessary steps ‘to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation’ of the fundamental rights recognised in the Convention. Article 2(1) of the ICESCR states:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

The United Nations’ Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights has determined that Article 2 (1) ‘must be read in the light of the overall objective of the Covenant which is to establish clear obligations for states parties in respect of the full realization of the rights in question’. This provision, ‘thus imposes an obligation to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards that goal’. Furthermore, in its Article 4, the ICESCR declares:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. [17]

The United Nations’ Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights emphasises that the Covenant’s limitation clause to be found in Article 4, “is primarily intended to protect the rights of individuals rather than to permit the imposition of limitations by States”. As also noted by the Committee, “issues of public health are sometimes used by states as grounds for limiting the exercise of other fundamental rights”.[18] That being so, any state that, for example, restricts the movement of, or incarcerates, persons or refuses to allow doctors to treat persons believed to be opposed to a government, is acting in a manner that is ‘incompatible with the nature of the rights protected by the ICESCR’.[19] Furthermore, Article 12.2. of the ICESCR acknowledges that the right to health embraces a wide range of fundamental rights which allows people to have a healthy life, such as employment rights and freedoms to movement and association.

To conclude, the Morrison government surely has the power to override state “health orders” that mandate vaccination.[20] Given that Australia has entered into innumerable international law instruments, the external affairs power could be used for the enactment of federal legislation forbidding mandatory vaccination, according to the long accepted approach of the High Court. To be constitutionally valid, this pro-choice bill would have to rely on the external affairs power, pursuant to Australia’s entry into the afore-mentioned international legal instruments, thereby giving effect to these instruments. This reliance on international law should be evident from the Preamble to the pro-choice bill overturning the ability of the Australian states to create “health orders” imposing these vaccine mandates.


Augusto Zimmermann LLB, LLM cum laude, PhD, CIArb, DipEd, is Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education and President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA). From 2012 to 2017, he served as a Law Reform Commissioner in Western Australia. While teaching constitutional law as a tenured academic at Murdoch University, Professor Zimmermann was awarded the 2012 Vice Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Research, as well as two Law School Dean’s Research Awards, in 2010 and 2011. He is the author of numerous academic articles on the Rule of Law, contributing, inter alia, for a seminal book on the subject edited by the President of the American Bar Association: The Legal Doctrines of the Rule of Law and the Legal State (Rechtsstaat) (Springer, 2014). Professor Zimmermann is also the co-editor of Fundamental Rights in the Age of Covid-19 (Connor Court Publishing, 2021).


Gabriël A. Moens AM, JD, LLM, PhD, GCEd, MBA, MAppL, FCIArb, CIArb, FAIM, FCL, FAAL is emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland and served as pro vice-chancellor and dean of law at Murdoch University. Professor Moens is the author/co-author of numerous academic books, including The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Annotated (9thEd., LexisNexis, 2016) and Jurisprudence of Liberty (2nd ed, LexisNexis, 2011).  He has also published a novel about the origins of the COVID-19 virus, “A Twisted Choice” (Boolarong Press, 2020) and recently published his second novel, “The Coincidence” (Connor Court Publishing, 2021)  

[1][1] ‘Abetz Abstains on Mandatory Vaccine Bill’, 22 November 2021, at

[2] Sir Harry Gibbs, ‘The Decline of Federalism?’ (1994) 18 University of Queensland Law Journal 1, 4.

[3] Andrew Stewart and George Williams, Work Choices: What the High Court Said (Sydney: Federation Press, 2007), 10

[4]  (2009) 236 CLR 573

[5] Ibid at [62].

[6] Ibid at [151].

[7] AAP FactCheck, ‘The Nuremberg Code Doesn’t Apply to COVID-19 Vaccinations’, June 9, 2021.

[8]  Rocco Loiacono, ‘Most Covid patients at Israeli hospital fully vaccinated? What does this mean for Australia?’, The Spectator Australia, August 12, 2021, at

[9] (1992) 174 CLR 455.

[10] Ibid at [8].

[11] ‘Statement by Mrs Franklin D Roosevelt’, Department of State Bulletin (December 1948) 751. Quoted in Ngaire Naffine, Law’s Meaning of Life: Philosophy, Religion, Darwin and the Legal Person (Hart Publishing: Oxford, 2009), 103.

[12] Commonwealth v Tasmania [1983] HCA 21; (1983) 158 CLR 1 (‘Tasmanian Dam Case’).

[13] Ibid 125 (Mason J). 

[14] [2009] HCA 23; (2009) 238 CLR 1, 162 (Heydon J) (‘Pape’).

[15] United Nations Economic and Social Council, United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Siracusa Principles on the LImination and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Annex, UN Doc E/CN.4/ (1984) [58].

[16] ‘Right to Health: Public Sector Guidance Sheet’, Australian Government, Attorney-General Department.

[17] U.N. Economic and Social Council – Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.14. (11 August 2000)

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 293 (Webb J).

15 thoughts on “If the Will Were There to End Vaccine Mandates…

  • Stephen Due says:

    These vaccines are primarily a political device. State governments locked down their populations and offered them no way out except to get vaccinated. Early treatment remains a better option but the drugs that are known to work have been banned by the federal government – according to the TGA this is necessary because to allow treatment would discourage people from taking the vaccine.
    Promoting vaccine uptake is a bad reason, incidentally, for banning effective treatment. People are still dying of Covid in hospitals around Australia because they are being denied lifesaving drugs. It’s not difficult to think of some strong language to describe this strategy – the mildest that comes to mind is ‘callous’.
    There is no public health or medical reason for mandating mass vaccination with these vaccines. They are practically useless. Their adverse effects although ‘rare’ are horrendous, and are carefully hidden by the authorities. Their long-term adverse effects are completely unknown but are possibly even worse. They are being given to millions of people who are not at serious risk of hospitalisation or death from Covid, to whom they offer no conceivable medical benefit.
    This is what happens when governments deliberately spread fear in a population as part of a so-called ‘public health’ policy. The fact that the Australian people have been so easily manipulated is disturbing. The complete lack of leadership from the Prime Minister is very disappointing. I saw Pauline Hanson’s excellent speech. She put the PM to shame.

  • Stephen Due says:

    A basic principle of public health is that mass vaccination is not justified if there is safe, cheap effective treatment for the condition. In the case of Covid there are several such treatments, including Ivermectin, and they effectively render the vaccination program unethical, even without the element of coercion.
    A good recent presentation on Ivermectin is given Dr. Paul Marik, a veteran of Critical Care Medicine, author of the major textbooks in the field, and of over 500 scientific papers in the peer-reviewed literature.

  • tommbell says:

    Morrison will do nothing. A weak venal man. As for the ethically challenged fools giving “health advice” to the States, we can be sure that 100%vax rates will not stop transmission/contraction of the China bug. So the next chapter will be insistence on boosters. Boosters, boosters and boosters till the end of time – until those responsible for this madness receive lawful but condign treatment.

  • ianl says:

    >”The fact that the Australian people have been so easily manipulated is disturbing” [Stephen Due, above]

    Perhaps disappointing, but not dismaying. Simply look at the supermarket wars fought over toilet paper supply. Manipulation made effective with constant, purposeful dumbing down.

    Apart from that, Stephen Due’s comments are accurate – and will make no difference. Nor will my comments. The essay above by Drs. Zimmerman and Moens is lucid, but lucidity is not prized by the bureaucracies.

    For NSW, the closer December 15 approaches (or 95% vaccination, or 103% vax rate – just to be sure, to be sure), the more we will see scarier and scarier “updates” published by the conceited MSM. Already there is a new South African strain, with “unusual” mutations – not that a “usual” mutation is defined – to threaten the population with. Bureaucratic medicos, very much including Chant, do *not* want restrictions lifted. Dom Perignon, Hazzard and so-Kean will backflip. The Labor State Premiers will continue to career into deeper hysteria to help Albanese win next year.

  • rod.stuart says:

    With every passing day, as the adverse events and deaths add up in VAERS and teh TGA’s DAEN, it is becoming more and more lear that the injections of cytotoxi genetic material. commonly called the “vaccine” in in fact the instrument of world wide depopulation through direct illness, destruction of the immune system, and interference in the reproductive system.
    As the “unvacinated” control group grows smaller, it is becoming less and less of a mystery as to the reason that DEAGEL.COM had forecast an Australian population of 9 million in 2025. The populations of the USA, Canada, and New Zealand, inter alia, were forecast to be reduced by similar amounts. China not so much.
    While this cannot be construed as any sort of evidence, it does give one pause for thought, doesn’t it?
    Once that forecast began to be discussed in the chaterscape, It was withdrawn mysteriously in April. has close ties to the CIA., and quite possibly the WEF.

  • rod.stuart says:

    On eugenics:
    “It used to be the Indians. Now we’re all Indians.”

  • pgang says:

    On another note, the media has become so unbelievably socialist-woke that there is zero reporting on the major flooding events and risks occurring in eastern Australia. Notably Gunnedah, which has already gone under, and the Hunter River which is on track to break its banks below the Goulburn River. It can’t be reported I guess, until they’ve come up with their collective ‘blame-it-on-climate-change’ meme. Two years ago this would have been national news. It’s not even being reported in the Newcastle Herald. Far West NSW has had incredible rain that has closed highways.

  • Geoff Sherrington says:

    About year 1990 I was at a conference that had a newly-retired Chief Justice of the High Court also in the audience. He asked a question of the speaker, about the number of international treaties to which Australia had entered into force, opining a few dozen, then being surprised when I mentioned about 1,500. I had long thought this high number had the capacity to attack our Sovereignty, much of it done by Gareth Evans, sometimes several a month on the assembly line, so I suggested to the Judge that he examine how the effects of one treaty on another were so often contradictory that many were able to be nullified.
    Section 51(xxix) was often debated among resources companies who suffered, as did my employer company, for excess allowed by its vague wording. Sadly, some of the majors declined to raise this matter of concern with the Feds, but we did, finally to the Full Bench, who essentially said it was too complex for them. Geoff S

  • vickisanderson says:

    I have to say that I have been very disappointed by the lack of commitment to freedom of choice in Australia – a development that has diminished our status as a freedom loving country overseas.

    Perhaps the many blessings we enjoy in relation to the comforts of modern day living have lessened our appreciation of the very perilously fragile tenure that such pleasures may have.

    In his magnificent speech in Milan Robert Kennedy Jnr recently referred to the famous Milgram experiment of Yale whereby the willingness of ordinary people to obey directions to inflict pain on others was tested. Recall that participants were told that such an action was for a very important and worthwhile experiment. About 70% of participants pressed the “pain” button, while about 30% would not. I suspect that current government directions regarding the “good” vaccines effectively led to a willing and happy 70%. Of the remaining 30%, about 25% have to be coerced with threats of job loss etc. Only about 5% have remained immune to threats and sceptical of the government rationale.

    I am hoping that the 25% will eventually perceive the reality of the government’s intentions and decide that resistance of any further “immunisation” is the only way of safeguarding their future health and those of their loved ones.

    Twenty five percent of voters would be enough to topple governments & at least cause them to reconsider their course.

  • Watchman Williams says:

    The Great Australian Apathy – “She’ll be right, mate” – makes Australia an ideal place to trial the introduction of “Fabian Fascism”, for want of a better name to describe the gradual creep into anti-democratic, favoured by all major political parties.
    Australians hasten to respond to the unconstitutional and unlawful demands of governments that deprive them of their liberties; they rush to comply with the rules regarding lockups and masking unquestionably, and embrace the injection of genetic editing material developed from the cell lines of murdered infants without demur.
    The parallels with Nazi Germany are staggering.
    The media was no more one-eyed in Nazi Germany than it is in Australia today. But whereas, in the Nazi era, the press was censored by the Propaganda chief, Josef Goebbels, in Australia today the press is censoring itself, bearing testimony to the ethical bankruptcy of journalists, as well as the conspiratorial character of MSM. Moreover, Government policies have protected Big Business and seen it flourish while small business has floundered. Local offshoots of large international conglomerates, such as McDonalds, have been deemed to be “essential services” while small locally owned businesses like gymnasiums, hairdressers and physiotherapists have been obliged to close their doors. And just as in Germany, doctors followed government directives on clinical matters, so too, do doctors in Australia today. In fact, if a doctor fails to follow government directives, he/she will not be allowed to practice.
    And who would have thought that churches could be closed by government directive for worship of God, fellowship with the saints, breaking bread and preaching of the apostles’ doctrine – in Australia, of all places, where our Constitution begins with the words; “WE, the people…..relying on the blessings of Almighty God….” And what Christian in Australia, fifty years ago, would have obeyed the government and forsaken their ‘gathering together”.
    Moreover, governments in Australia have followed the Nazi technique of using “emergency powers” to impose their dictatorships.
    It is little wonder that conspiracy theories abound.

  • graham.perryman says:

    Another detailed informative article by Prof Gus & Gabriel Moens.
    I know its early days in bringing the people responsible for this human travesty, to account, in future years, but it appears to my non legal mind, that there are any number of not only ‘external’ ways but also one or two ‘internal’ ones as well.
    There is clear unequivocal evidence world wide of the short term adverse effects of these vaccines (so called), including 000’s of deaths, (ref even 1% VAERS), let alone, what the medium/ long term effects are going to be.
    There should be no where to hide for the perpetrators of this, & given so called ‘Cloud Funding’ has become the go to for raising funds, then I suspect literally millions of people (including me), will be glad to donate, when the time comes.
    Given some of them, are getting on in years, we all know who these characters are, that cannot come quick enough, IMHO.

  • Rebekah Meredith says:

    You are absolutely right, Watchman. I have just read Doctors from Hell, by Vivien Spitz (one of the court stenographers at Nuremberg) and am now re-reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer (both acquired through WA’s inter-library-lone system). I knew that there were plenty of parallels between Nazi Germany and the modern world, but just how many there are is chilling. One thing I am becoming convinced of is that what we are under is not a form of Communism, as I first believed; it is fascism. As you pointed out, both the Nazis and the present tyranny favour (and are favoured by) big business at the expense of small business. Governments have not completly absorbed businesses; they just control them.
    In a gallows-humour way, it’s rather funny that fascism–the worse system that there is, according to progressives–is being promoted by those who claim to oppose it the most, while the true anti-fascists are ridiculed!

  • hwka says:

    Interesting ..and valid..article.
    Interesting..and valid comments.
    But it ignores the rat cunning of both State and federal Governments.
    With their enormous resources and the best of legal advice available it is utterly inconceivable that State and Federal Governments are not well aware of the legal situation.
    So they merely segued around the indefensible by allowing…encouraging actually… industry to implement the banning.
    To paraphrase our “acting” Prime Minister: “I am against compulsory vaccinations and vaccine passports…but if Myers or BP or Macdonalds decide to require it as a condition of entry…….”
    Gutless rat cunning.

  • pgang says:

    Rebekah I don’t think it is either communism or fascism. They are subsets of socialism, distinct for their time. We are entering our own distinct form of socialism, which is more of a technocracy / crony-ocracy. Socialism is subtle and happily shifts it shape and language to conform with the times. But underneath it retains its core elements, driven by a hateful spite for humanity and the human spirit. The goal of socialism – a historical spiritual disease that is always within arm’s reach – is death (utopia). The chosen ones feel specially called to destroy the present order, to usher in a glorious new way of life (Zombie-land). That is what wokism is today – the socialist siren song of the chosen ones.
    There are four primary drivers which are inherent to all historical socialist manifestations to a greater or lesser degree. They are: 1) the abolition of property, 2) the abolition or communality of family, 3) hostility towards religion (or state control of it), and 4) a need for general communality, conformity, or ‘sameness’ within the masses.
    So for example in the West today:
    1) Sophisticated taxation and debilitating pecuniary penalties, with the ‘public money’ used to take ever greater control of the economy and impoverish the citizenry (climate change)
    2) Feminism and the promiscuity drive have all but achieved this, abetted by crazy laws that undermine marriage and family (homosexual marriage, no blame divorce, abortion on demand, de facto relationship rights, children’s rights, etc.)
    3) Anti-discrimination law, emergency covid powers, Darwinism, hostility in schools
    4) Critical race theory, multiculturalism, unfettered immigration, de-sexualisation, vaccine mandates, lock-downs, social media, technological tracking and data theft.

  • Francois Stallbom says:

    I agree with pgang: “There are four primary drivers which are inherent to all historical socialist manifestations to a greater or lesser degree. They are: 1) the abolition of property, 2) the abolition or communality of family, 3) hostility towards religion (or state control of it), and 4) a need for general communality, conformity, or ‘sameness’ within the masses”. Towards a World War III Scenario –

Leave a Reply