Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

https://vimeo.com/573254706  The Insanity! COVID-19_Democide_Not_a_Pandemic

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/icedearth/democide.html
https://i.redd.it/bxpuwdt4zoe71.jpg  vax checks vs PII HIPAA medical privacy



https://principia-scientific.com/australian-high-court-rules-the-constitution-bans-mandatory-vaccination/

Australian High Court Rules the Constitution BANS Mandatory Vaccination
Published on July 2, 2021
Written by Marian Calcroft (video: Darren Dixon)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxu5nF3XtzM

In Part One of a 6-part series of interviews with Darren Dixon for the
‘GLOSSA channel’ Aussies learn that their High Court has already ruled
that under law, they can refuse ALL government ‘mandatory’
vaccinations.

Transcript (by Marian Calcroft) below:

Rob: Hello everyone, and welcome back to the Glossa Channel. I am here
today to speak to Darren Dixon here in Melbourne, Australia regarding
something called a Constitutional Guarantee. Welcome to the program
Darren. How are you doing today?

Darren: Good, thanks Rob! Finally great to meet you.

Rob: Yes, we’ve spoken on the telephone long-distance from time to
time, but it’s good to be here in person. Can you explain to us what
this Constitutional Guarantee is? You’ve told me in our private
conversations a bit about it, but I believe the listeners and viewers
would be greatly interested by this topic.

Darren: Well – in this current time of what’s going on, in Australia,
and all around the world, in regards to medical services, um a lot of
people are feeling that they are, er, being forced to accept certain
medical services, we’ll call them medical services, and they relate to
any medical service that can be provided, whether it be general or
preventative it’s irrelevant, it covers all medical services. And,
what it is, in the Commonwealth Constitution, it’s a very unique
guarantee that we have, er, compared to every other country in the
world. And what it actually says is that the Parliament have power to
make laws for the good, for the peace, order and good government in
respect to medical and dental services but so as to NOT impose any
form of Civil Conscription.

Now what does that mean exactly?

Well, it’s in regards to medical and dental services, that’s the
subject matter, but there’s another part which says “NOT to impose any
form of CIVIL Conscription”.

What’s Civil Conscription? Well, we know what military conscription
is. That’s when you’re forced to provide military services to the
government. Well, this is to NOT impose any form of Civil
Conscription, so a Civilian Conscription, and NOT to impose any form
of it.

So, basically, I’ll go back to how this was created. And how that was
created, is in 1946 Australia had a Referendum, and the people in 1946
voted for this to be inserted into The Constitution. And it provides a
medical protection, that I know a lot of people are looking for and
are a bit bewildered at a lot of the, a lot of the State news that’s
coming out at the moment in regards to being… having certain medical
procedures forced upon them.

Now the High Court has actually spoken on this, and they’ve
interpreted this “NO form of Civil Conscription”, over 60 years in
much settled Case Law. There’s been 38 High Court Judges involved, and
they’ve actually interpreted that part of Civil Conscription to which
I was speaking about. And what they’ve actually interpreted it to be
is the fact that, in regards to medical procedures, there is a thing
called the doctor-patient relationship. And the doctor-patient
relationship cannot be penetrated. It’s voluntary, it’s by your
consent, and then no third party can get involved in this particular
relationship, it’s just you and the doctor. Not even the Government
can get involved in the doctor-patient relationship.

So having said that, what actually the High Court have defined and
interpreted, is that the Government cannot provide any legal or
practical compulsion for you to accept any medical procedure. It’s
totally voluntary, and it’s by your consent, and if the consent is
forced, or the consent is withdrawn during the medical procedure, it’s
actually assault.

So, this guarantee that we have, is something that can be relied upon
in respect of any encroachment of any Government compulsion, so as to
force a medical procedure upon you. And once again, Rob, this isn’t me
saying this, this is the High Court. And this is backed up by the
People of Australia in the 1946 Referendum. It’s not me, I’m just the
vessel delivering the message.

It’s a long-forgotten part of our Constitutional History, er, and ever
since then there’s been multiple cases that have called for an
interpretation of that particular provision of the Act, and I think
the People of Australia need to know that they can rely on Section
51.23a, that no form of any medical procedure can be forced upon you,
without your consent and without your WILL. And there’s actually a
case, which is the Medical Practitioner’s Case, where it says the
Commonwealth, the High Court said this, that the Commonwealth cannot
write any laws so as to impose immunisation or vaccination upon the
People of Australia. So that’s been settled Case Law, and we’ve
actually got some letters from the current Prime Minister, Scott
Morrison, which backs this up.

So, now there’s concerns about some State Laws for example in Western
Australia there’s a State Health Act, where they say they can do the
opposite of that. That they can actually impose some sort of a medical
procedure upon you, without your consent. This is in breach of the
Constitutional Guarantee. It needs to be challenged in Courts. There
needs to be a challenge in regards to the invalidity of that State
Act, which is governed by Section 109 of The Constitution, when a Law
of the State is inconsistent with a Law of the Commonwealth, the
latter shall prevail and the former shall be inconsistent to the point
of the invalidity.

So, what that basically means is, is when a State Law is inconsistent,
or in… and not in harmony with the Commonwealth Law, that Law is
INVALID. It doesn’t have to be decided, it’s invalid from the
beginning. Although people would like a Court to proclaim it, that is
the fact. It cannot be inconsistent with the Commonwealth Law, and
that’s another thing you can rely on. But these things are soon to be
played out in the High Court. I’m aware of multiple people taking
multiple challenges to the High Court, in respect of the
Constitutional Guarantee found at Section 51.23a and these are in
respect of, um, some protesting rights that have been happening in
Victoria, and forced medical services in respect of wearing masks and,
and other alike subject matter. So, there’s some interesting times
that are coming towards us, that ah, we should see some interesting
decisions happening from the Courts themselves.

Rob: So you would suggest that if there are any State Laws that are in
conflict with, or contradictory to The Constitution, then The
Constitution prevails over any State Laws?

Darren: 100 percent. And,um, there’s a Clause in the Constitution,
Clause 5, which says that the Constitution is binding on all the
Courts, Judges and People of every State and every part of the
Commonwealth regardless of what the State Laws say. So not only is
there The Constitutional Guarantee, it has a binding effect as well.

There’s also something that was brought to my attention recently, is
ah, in Queensland, they are just about to bring out a CoVID App, that
ah, they’re imposing. The Government are imposing businesses to
enforce that people cannot enter your premises without logging in with
the CoVID app through their Smartphone. Now that right there is an
encroachment of Political Liberties.  Number one, it’s forcing me to
carry a mobile phone, which is not Law. Secondly, it’s asking the
business to impose it on the customer, so it’s an over extension of
the Government’s Laws realistically.

Also the Privacy Act, Section 94h of the Privacy Act says, that you
cannot force someone to download the CoVID safe App, the Commonwealth
one. Nor can you reject them or deny them any service. So this is once
again a Law of the State that’s inconsistent with The Privacy Act
which says that you cannot deny people service because they don’t have
the App, and you cannot force people to download the App itself.

So this, is what we see a lot, that people are unaware of these
guarantees that we have that stop this over-enforcement of the State
Governments. One just needs to look to The Commonwealth Law for
remedy, and usually you’ll find something either in The Privacy Act,
The Constitution…. and there’s also another Act called the Australian
Consumer Law Act which is the Competition and Consumer Act and that
provides many protections within that Act, for Australian consumers,
and any discrimination in regards to the providing of services.