Well she doesn't look like the picture of happiness!
Posted on 09/28/2021 9:27:11 PM PDT by conservative98
Unvaccinated residents of Sydney, Australia, will face social isolation and a difficult life should they continue to resist vaccination, says New South Wales state Premier Gladys Berejiklian.
According to Reuters, Berejiklian told reporters on Tuesday that the unvaccinated will face a great deal of difficulty when stay-at-home orders cease this coming December, from social activities to simple employment.
“A lot of businesses have said they will not accept anyone who is unvaccinated,” Berejiklian told Seven News on Tuesday. “Life for the unvaccinated will be very difficult indefinitely.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The thing is, as far as I know, the Australian constitution prohibits most federal interference in state affairs, including in the health sphere. Maybe you think the PM is engaging in a form of noble cowardice and hiding behind that constitution, but it is still there.
Just wait until the majority of the vaxxed people suffer bad reactions or die; then all they’ll have are the un-vaxxed. Let the politicians think about that.
Yes, that's exactly right.
Maybe you think the PM is engaging in a form of noble cowardice and hiding behind that constitution, but it is still there.
Personally I don't think there's any cowardice. I think he's doing what he can within the confines of the constitution. A more aggressive approach would accomplish nothing because there is no mechanism he could use to back that up. All he can do is negotiate and that means being conciliatory and given some ground when he has to. Compromise is the only available option.
Actually, I was implying that the other individual I directed my reply to was perhaps thinking that your PM was engaging in noble cowardice. I don’t believe that you think such a thing.
How about fascist dictators? Do you take them "extremely seriously"?
I thought that’s what you are getting at.
The thing is, the idea the Prime Minister is a coward - I don’t agree, but I wouldn’t regard that as an indefensible opinion. I could understand why somebody might think that.
I’ve wondered myself if things would be better if he pushed harder.
Somewhat reluctantly, I’ve concluded they wouldn’t. I wish I could say otherwise.
Yes, I do.
I’ve been opposing what my state government has been doing for this entire pandemic. I don’t regard them as fascist, but they are hardcore authoritarian and if dictator is an exaggeration, it’s only just an exaggeration.
I just don’t believe the situation is helped by people making it seem even worse than it is. It’s bad enough.
I understand all the internal Aussie politics...but there is one thing the PM could do...
and that is speak loudly and clearly that the states are engaging in Pfascism which is a clear violation of the Nuremberg Codes.
He should remind them that at some future date they may be subject to international sanctions, up to and including public execution, for crimes against humanity—for ill effects and deaths from the vaxxes taken under duress.
Then he has gone on record and given them a warning.
What happens after that is their call.
Well she doesn't look like the picture of happiness!
“They deliberately wrote the constitution so they would remain sovereign in the areas they chose to. The Prime Minister CANNOT overrule them in public health matters. It is legally and constitutionally impossible for him to do so. This is simple fact and it won’t stop being simple fact because some ill informed person in America doesn’t think it should be that way.”
Our Constitution is written the same way with all powers not designated to the Feds belong to the States. It’s amazing how our Prez using a variety of means, mostly Exec Orders, gets around those State powers. I’m sure your guy could come up with ways to get something accomplished here. I can’t remember which news program was discussing this but they were saying there were ways (declaring a nat’l emergency?) to get around the states.
There are always rumors and exaggerations, but for the most part the authoritarian dictatorial actions (that are very fascist-like, depending on your definition of fascist) are there for all to see. Your country, whether you like it or not, is in deep doo doo.
“I’m glad I live in a country where there isn’t any real doubt as to who was elected and where we have a national leader who respects and follows our constitution even when it’s inconvenient.”
We have a corrupt regime (a Fascist/Marxist regime) governing illegally that is in the process of ruining our country. You have corrupt (plural) leaders of your States that are in the process of ruining them by fascist actions, whether you want to admit they are fascist or not. We have one top dog to get rid of, you have plural top dogs in your States that you must get rid of.
Fascism (Merriam Webster): a centralized autocratic government (your States) headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
I’m an historian. I don’t rely on simplistic dictionary definitions for complex issues.
I could go into why I don’t agree with the term fascist in this case, but it would involve a fairly long essay and I have absolutely confidence, you’d be willing to even contemplate changing your mind, given you seem to have difficultly with even the most basic concept that under Australia’s constitution, the Prime Minister doesn’t have the type of power you think he does.
“Maybe you think the PM is engaging in a form of noble cowardice and hiding behind that constitution, but it is still there.”
Yeah, so is ours, but our sack of sh*t President has no problem finding a bunch of ways around it. I’m sure the PM has few options, but I saw on TV a discussion about how he does have an option or two to mitigate the situation, declaring some kind of emergency (I wasn’t paying close attention); however, he is not really getting out there to condemn what is occurring in the States it appears. Whatever, Australia is being trashed by the autocratic, dictatorial leaders of major States in the country. And our Country because of the actions of our Fascist/Commie President, is going down the same road, which is my point. Naturalman1975 makes too many excuses for what is happening in his country, IMHO. That’s all.
Yes, but there's a couple of huge differences. You've had a civil war between the time your Constitution was written and today which rather reset the balance between the states and the Federal government.
The second is more important - your President is a Head of State. Our Prime Minister isn't a Head of State - he's a Head of Government. The Head of State is the Queen, represented by the Governor-General.
It’s amazing how our Prez using a variety of means, mostly Exec Orders, gets around those State powers. I’m sure your guy could come up with ways to get something accomplished here.
That difference between Head of State and Head of Government is important here. Our Prime Minister cannot issue executive orders, because he's not the head of the executive.
The closest thing we have to executive orders are "Orders-in-Council" which can be issued by the Governor-General, but there are very strict rules on when the Governor-General can do that in an emergency situation. And even then, they'd only normally apply federally, because just as the Prime Minister cannot overrule a state Premier, the Governor-General cannot overrule a state Governor (the Queen's representative of a state).
I can’t remember which news program was discussing this but they were saying there were ways (declaring a nat’l emergency?) to get around the states.
There aren't any such ways. I don't care what news program you saw said so. And there is no such thing as a national state of emergency under Australian law. The idea of having that power was being discussed just prior to the pandemic - the 2019/2020 bushfires made it clear that this might be a good idea. But it was only in discussion and there isn't any legislation to do it yet. And even if legislation is passed (which is unlikely at the moment because the government doesn't control the Senate), it would have to remain within the bounds of the Constitution - legislation can't overrule the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended but only by national referendum - and most attempts to amend it have failed at referendum.
Your country, whether you like it or not, is in deep doo doo.
I don't deny that. I have said that repeatedly. Over and over again. But exaggerating the situation doesn't help.
and that is speak loudly and clearly that the states are engaging in Pfascism which is a clear violation of the Nuremberg Codes.
First of all, no, the state governments are not clearly violating the Nuremberg Code. It's an arguable position, but it's not a clear one. For it to be a clear violation, vaccination would have been mandated by law for all people regardless of circumstances - and even there it's not 100% clear unless the vaccine is still considered experimental (and under Australian standards, AstraZeneca and Pfizer are no longer considered to be experimental - Moderna is approved but still considered experimental - no other vaccines have been approved at all yet - that's a decision by an independent body, not government). Mandates for people with specific jobs (which is what we have here) or as a condition to avoid quarantine rules don't clearly qualify.
Secondly, even if they were, it's irrelevant. The Nuremberg Code has no force in Australian law. Australia does not automatically apply international declarations to our laws (Thank Goodness, because some of those international declarations aren't good).
Thirdly, all it would do is more clearly show that the Prime Minister is powerless and that would likely embolden the state governments that are engaged in bad behaviour. If they are going to be accused of such serious violations for just mandating vaccination to work in high risk situations, why wouldn't they just mandate vaccines for everybody? It would make it more likely they'd do that.
Fourthly - and I know it's hard to see from outside (at times, it hard to see from inside) the Prime Minister is actually making progress with negotiations. We now have in principle agreement with the idea that the country should open up even if COVID numbers can't be brought down to zero. That's a huge concession by the states, especially by Victoria and was only achieved by negotiation. Antagonising them doesn't do any good. Negotiating does.
Just one disagreement—the Nuremburg Code is about _duress_...sticks are _duress_.
For something to be duress, it has to reach a fairly high standard. Exactly where that standard is can be debated, but I doubt any court would find it was being met in this case.
Get the vaxx or lose your job is clear duress—this is not complicated.
One who took and ate The Fruit.
And gives it to others.
Genesis
Yes, but there are degrees, and just pretending there aren’t doesn’t change anything.
Some of us have to deal with the real world not some utopian fantasy we have in our heads.
If I could wish things true, it wouldn’t be changing the definition of duress in law. That would be way down on my list at the moment.
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.