Posted on 09/21/2021 8:47:31 PM PDT by naturalman1975
This is a really thoughtful helpful post. But let’s not minimize the fact that police have beaten protestors
While I believe some of the demonstrations have been justified, I don't believe all have been. And some of the ones that haven't been have turned violent. More police have been seriously injured than protestors. I've seen one incident where I believe went too far in dealing with a protestor and it wouldn't surprise me if there's others. But there's a lot of cases where the police were simply themselves from attack.
jailed people who broke curfew
I don't know of any cases where somebody has been imprisoned for breaking curfew. It's a fine. Now, that's not a good situation, but it doesn't need to be exaggerated into something worse than it is. As I say there are real problems here - but it's harder to deal with those when we're also having to deal with shadow problems.
not to mention that freedom of movement both within and outside the country has essentially been banned.
The latter part is close to being true - there's quite a few exceptions to international travel but for the average person in the average situation, yes, that's fair. The former part does apply only in some places - in most of the country, people can move over a wide area.
One wonders if the populace would have willingly accepted these horrors if their weapons had not been seized a couple of decades ago.
Already addressed this in a previous post but I want to add to it. There was a buyback that took a minority of weapons out of the community. In most cases people could have kept those guns. Very few guns were actually confiscated and they were mostly taken from convicted criminals (and even then most of them were paid for the weapons because it was easier to get them to comply). Millions of guns remained in private hands, and there are actually more guns now in private hands than there were then. It doesn't make a difference to what is happening. Things haven't reached the stage where anybody is likely to want to use them.
I note that in the United States, the people who protested at the Capitol in January generally did so unarmed. Just because guns exist doesn't mean they need to be pulled out at every level of protest.
I have, in fact, contacted the Queen’s representative in Victoria, the Governor. The situation still hasn’t reached the stage that the Governor can act but I do have some concerns that it might.
The stage that the Queen herself could act is even higher.
I’m in the lucky position I could probably contact the Queen - I’m friends with two of her sons - but if I did, she’d just tell me off because she’d know damned well that I know damned well, that this is still way below the extremely high constitutional threshold that would allow her to do anything. And she scares me - she’s like the ultimate stern grandmother when she wants to be.
This is really helpful. Thank You.
I realize that they are an island of sorts and can better control outbreaks from foreign sources, but how on earth do they plan to deal with the spread? This virus isn’t going away for a very long time. At some point don’t you just have to start living again? What is the rational end game?
bookmark
The rate matters because that is the core of the plan here. It is pretty much accepted here (I know some people disagree) that vaccination does reduce the chance of getting infected but more important significantly reduces the risk of becoming seriously ill - very few cases in Australian hospitals now involve vaccinated people. Even they get it, hardly anybody who is vaccinated is getting sick enough to need hospital care. So the aim is to open the areas that do have active cases when vaccination levels in those areas reach certain thresholds. That's actually already started happening.
By the time we reach 80% vaccination levels (which in my state is projected to be early November) things will be much less restricted than they are now - I still think the state government is being too paranoid at that point, but we won't be under lockdowns of any sort anymore and what we'll be dealing with is most things being open with capacity limits. Most of the country is already at that stage.
Some restrictions have already lifted here (and we are the worst area in terms of restrictions), and more will when we hit the 70% vaccination mark (which I think is in about three weeks). It's glacially slow in this state but it is happening, and as I say we are the worst case - most of the country is much closer to normality than we are, and coming out of things faster. But our state government is still paranoid - less paranoid than they were, but it's still a pretty high level.
Exactly what will happen after that hasn't yet been decided - the plan is to eventually be living without any restrictions but they will look at the data then to work out when that will be, once we reach the stage of being more opened up. If, as is expected, very few people are getting seriously ill at that point, it could happen quickly. If the numbers go badly, I wouldn't what to predict what will happen. I am fairly confident, absent a new and very virulent strain of virus (which would change things) we will be back to normal by the end of next year at the latest. Best case scenario I can see at the moment is Christmas this year - January or February next year seems more likely.
Understand we have tried to do this before. We were pretty close to back to normal from the first part of this year, before Delta came along. That's the wild card. New strains that are more dangerous.
And this:
“Australia Imposes New Restrictions on Prescribing Ivermectin for COVID-19”
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3993822/posts?page=48#48
Thanks for posting this. It is important for a lot of us to understand the fundamental difference in government structure between the USA and Australia.
It provides important context, so...thanks.
In the long term, I think it will have little to do with it. Restrictions seem to delay inevitable transmission and cause multitudes of death themselves.
I forgot to reply to this, but I nowhere argued this, but that the population density is so low restrictions likely did not prevent transmission much. And since 94% of transmission has been traced to household-type settings (with its extended contact) while fostering obesity and poor health, then stay-sheltered mandates can increase deaths.
I'm not sure where you've got your '94%' figure, but I've no reason to doubt it. But of course, most transmission has been in homes - we haven't been able to go anywhere else for long periods during this pandemic. But it isn't always that way.
I'm not a supporter of the extreme restrictions imposed. But I have the advantage of living here and I'm familiar with the patterns we've seen and how the outbreaks we've had have generally started. When we are opened up, we're fine while there's no COVID in the community but as soon as something brings it again, we immediately do have clearly identified community transmissions. One of the advantages of the numbers being so low is that in many cases, they can actually trace the exact infection chain quite effectively.
One recent example is that one of our recent outbreaks in Melbourne was sparked by a small group of 'furniture removalists' (in actual fact, they were a cowboy operation - if they'd followed the, in my view, fairly reasonable procedures for actual furniture removalists we might not have had a problem) who infected people at an apartment block. A person from that apartment block went to to the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground), Melbourne's major sporting stadium where he watched a football match with about 80,000 people - as I say, this was at a time when we pretty open so they were allowing crowd at football matches.
From there, teachers at two different schools (one of which is literally next door to the school I teach at) started infecting students and staff in their school.
And they infected people in their households. Basically now if anybody in a household gets it, everybody is likely to, so in the end yes, lots of the cases are in households, and because by this stage we are locked down again that's pretty much all likely to be until we reopen again.
P4L
“When I see all the Americans who claim your last election was stolen fighting in the streets I might be a more inclined to listen to Americans preaching about freedom.”
BAZINGA!!!!
I see more fight in the eye Ozzie’s that I do in us.
I see more fight in the French than I do in us
p4l
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/24/nation/what-does-it-mean-when-youve-got-covid-19-you-dont-know-where-or-how/?p1=Article_Feed_ContentQuery, another study found that in household transmissions individuals with symptoms were more than 25 times more likely to infect household members than those without symptoms at the time (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102; https://www.thecollegefix.com/bulletin-board/university-researchers-find-almost-no-covid-19-transmission-without-symptoms-in-households/) And the rate of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/briefing/outdoor-covid-transmission-cdc-number.html)
Closing parks, forest trails, beaches etc. and exhorting "shelter in place" and requiring masking whenever outside is not only unwarranted but fostered/fosters lack of exercise and increased weight, and often contributes to being hypertensive[8] and having high cholesterol, all of which are primary factors in Covid-19 deaths,[9] besides having compromised immune systems as with the aged, especially in seclusion. Also, a NIH study of 2015 found that being inside with increased CO2 levels significantly degraded cognitive function.[10]
"A person from that apartment block went to to the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground), Melbourne's major sporting stadium where he watched a football match with about 80,000 people - as I say, this was at a time when we pretty open so they were allowing crowd at football matches. From there, teachers at two different schools (one of which is literally next door to the school I teach at) started infecting students and staff in their school."
I see this case of tracking of "patient zeros" to be dubious in its conclusions.
I can't read the article - it's behind a paywall from my perspective, but it looks nearly a year old and I can't see any sign it relates to the Australian context. I suspect transmission figures are very different in the US from Australia because the US has had so many more cases.
I see this case of tracking of "patient zeros" to be dubious in its conclusions.
I don't. Our numbers are low enough here that I see no reason to doubt they can do this. They don't always succeed but the traces I've seen make complete sense to me.
Thank you. I appreciate your post. However, I’m curious. . It sounds almost like while you call them ‘socialists’, you agree with their rulings? How do you feel about the state border closures? How do you feel about the union heads decisions?
I disagree with Daniel Andrews, my state's socialist Premier on 95% of his response to COVID. I don't have a problem with mask mandates. Out of our six lockdowns, I think four of them have been totally absurd overreactions - the other two... I'm not sure. I think it's possible short lockdowns might have been a good idea in both those cases - but nowhere near as long as they were, or have been, given the numbers. I also believe they could have been better targeted, and far less severe.
I don't agree with doing nothing - and that's the dilemma. There is a risk with protests of pushing things too far the other way.
State border closures - I think states that are COVID free closing their borders to states that are COVID ridden is defensible. But some states (Western Australia in particular) lock down far too readily and others (Queensland, most specifically) take way too long to open their borders again.
I'm not sure what union heads' decisions you're referring to, so I can't comment on that one.
The governor has overstepped all bounds of reason in calling for such draconian measures. Is it possible for the people to receive succor from the courts?
Speaking with specific regard to Victoria - not Australia as a whole - the courts have only a very limited power to intervene, unfortunately - and may also be hopelessly politicised at this point. Part of the problem is, as I outlined in the original post, the distinction between Federal and State power in Australia. The High Court of Australia does have a specific and explicit role in addressing 'human rights' concerns - it can, and will, sometimes overturn government decisions if it believe human rights have been abused. It's also the Court that rules on Constitutional issues. But it's a Federal level court, so nearly all the times it does that, it's dealing with the Federal government and Federal law and the Australian Constitution - not state law. Australia has no Bill of Rights - the rights we have are based on common law inherited from the United Kingdom (mostly from England) dating back as far as Magna Carta. This does give us a lot of protected rights and the High Court can interpret those in the final analysis. Within Victoria (as in other states) the state Supreme Court is the highest court. And state Supreme Courts do not have the same ability or tradition of making rulings that go beyond the letter of the law. Their rulings are meant to be based on black letter interpretations of the law - of the law of their state specifically. And in Victoria, unfortunately, we do have a 'Bill of Rights'. I know to Americans, the concept of a Bill of Rights seems very important and is generally seen as a good thing - but that's because of the particular form of your Bill of Rights, the fact that it was basically the work of patriots and great thinkers. Unfortunately what we have here in Victoria is the 'Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities' which was created by a socialist government in 2006. It lays out a list of twenty specific rights - and most of those are good rights - but there's two problems. The first is that because there is now a list of twenty rights, anything not specifically in the list is now considered less important than those twenty rights. The second is that the Charter specifically says that rights can be suspended during a 'State of Emergency'.
Until last year, there were provisions in place in Victoria that no State of Emergency could last more than six months - but those provisions were themselves part of an Act of Parliament and so Parliament could amend them. Labor controls the lower house of the state Parliament, and was able to get three minor party MPs (one Green, one Animal Justice, and one Reason Party (which until recently was called the Sex Party)) to support them in the upper house giving them a majority there in extending the State of Emergency. Since then, these three MPs have consistently backed Labor's oppressive policies 'in the interests of public safety'.
The state courts - including the Supreme Court - have ruled on any complaints based on the letter of the law - including that Charter of Rights that is limited to specific rights, and which can be suspended according to the letter of the law. And, unfortunately, that's probably legally correct.
But even if it wasn't - Victoria's court system has become so politically correct after years of the socialist governments stacking it - if there's any grey area, it will always go to the left in its rulings.
Technically speaking, the High Court of Australia is the ultimate Court of Appeal and it can overturn state Supreme Court decisions - but only if those decisions were wrong under the law of those states - it's allowed to say 'The Victorian Supreme Court misinterpreted Victorian law', but it can't say 'Federal law allow us to overturn that state law'. It can overturn the laws of the two large state-like territories (it's one of the differences between being a state and a territory), but it's very reluctant to do so, and the worst violations have been in the states.
I said I'd get back to the distinction between a state Premier and a state Governor, because we have both, and the distinction is important here.
The Premier is the head of the state's elected government. They are the person who controls a majority of the lower house of State Parliament. They are the leader of the party that has the most members, basically (technically speaking that doesn't have to be true, but it virtually always is).
The Governor is the appointed representative of the Queen - Australia is a constitutional monarchy, and so are all six of the Australian states. The Queen of Australia is the same physical person as the Queen of the United Kingdom, but legally they are separate, and obviously the Queen lives in London - so she appoints Governors in each state, and a Governor General over Australia as a whole, as her representatives with all her powers. The choice is recommended to the Queen by the premier of the state, or by the Prime Minister in the case of the Governor General - but she does make the decision. In practice, the recommendation is virtually always accepted but it could be refused if somebody unsuitable was recommended. Because of that, most of the time, the person chosen is a good choice - they tend to either be senior military officers, or senior judges - people who have spent their life serving in a constitutional role. Victoria's current governor is Linda Dessau, a former federal judge, so she is from that type of background, and I can say personally, she's an excellent governor.
Theoretically, the Governor can overrule the Premier - because of that they represent the ultimate authority and ultimate protection for the people of their state. If a Premier does go too far, the Governor can overrule them or even dismiss them from office.
But this would involve overturning the democratically elected government. It would involve the King (because that is who the Governor is, legally) overruling Parliament in a democratic system. It's an extraordinary act, intended to only be used in extraordinary circumstances.
And unfortunately as bad as Daniel Andrews actions as Premier have been, it would be hard to argue they have reached that extraordinary level.
The Governor or Governor-Generals' power to dismiss a government has been used twice in Australian history - in the 1930s in New South Wales, when a state Premier seized the state's treasury illegally (he was a Labor Premier and he literally moved all the states gold and currency reserve out of the treasury building and into trade union headquarters to stop the Federal government forcing him to pay his states debts), and once at Federal level in 1975 where the Governor General dismissed the Labor government of Gough Whitlam after Whitlam couldn't pass a budget and told the Governor General he was going to order the Commonwealth Bank to illegally lend him money. And in both cases, the action was a resolution to the worst constitutional crises we'd experienced.
Things haven't got bad enough here for the Governor to be able to overtly act.
That doesn't mean she hasn't done anything - I strongly suspect she has, in private, told Mister Andrews not to do certain things that would force her to act. I think she probably has reined him in on occasion. But by convention this is done privately for as long as possible ("Premier, I must warn you that if you do (A), I will be forced to intervene." "Then, I won't do (A), Your Excellency.")
Are there situations that could force her to act? Yes, there are. One example that has been discussed recently is what would happen if Andrews tried to extend strong restrictions beyond the end of a State of Emergency (the current one is due to expire in mid-December, and at the moment, it looks like even his three tame upper house MPs would not extend beyond that date). If that happened, Andrews would clearly be violating the law, and I think the Governor would likely step in. But while he's been acting under the State of Emergency rules, as laid down by Parliament, she really can't.
It should be noted that most of the restrictions we were living under have now been lifted, and we have a timetable for most of the remaining ones to be lifted. When I wrote the original post here we were in a much worse situation than we are now. Things are getting back to normal here. There's no absolute guarantee that might not go backwards, and we're having to try and deal with a new type of power grab from Andrews, but it's a different situation than the one we were in in September.
Very interesting and informative. Thank you.
Keep reminding your friends and neighbors, (I think) it was John Locke who said: “He governs best who governs least.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.