“Vaccines are effective in saving lives, and the right to life is a human right.”
In the context of vaccine mandates this statement is misleading, since the opposite is also true: vaccines are known to kill a small percentage of people. Vaccination mandates, by applying significant economic and social-opportunity coercion to vaccinate, are expected to cause a percentage of vaccine-related deaths, thereby extinguishing some lives, and the right to life is a human right.
For the sake of fair characterisation of the impact of vaccine mandates on human rights, I suggest informing the reader of the likelihood that the right to life may also be violated by mandatory vaccination policies.
Normal people believe, correctly, that consent is necessarily Free consent, without any coercion. The authorities believe that when you are not pinned down and forcibly injected but only partially/economically coerced, this still leaves room for valid consent, so this ambiguity in the meaning of “consent” needs to be addressed, made explicit and resolved. Partial consent is practically meaningless, because only free, non-coerced consent can protect you from crimes against humanity, from abuse. Any crack in the scope of consent can be exploited against you.
I had a lengthy email exchange with my employer before I was fired for being unable to give "completely voluntary" (as stated on consent form) consent.
Part of what I said was:
"1. It’s not possible to give completely voluntary consent to something which is not voluntary.
2. It’s not possible to give valid consent whilst being coerced.
3. It’s not possible for me to get the vaccine without giving valid consent."
My strategy was to simply say that I would take the vaccine on the condition that the chemist understood that I was being coerced and that in no way did I want to take it. They simply ignored me.
I made a complaint to AHPRA who forwarded it to my state regulators. The complaint was essentially that the chemist who injected my entire workforce a) knew that my workmates had no choice b) knew that the consent forms were not valid.
The chemist literally argued that it wasn't his responsibility to gain consent. That my workplace had gathered the consent forms prior to his arrival. He had outsourced his responsibility to gain consent from each individual. The regulator accepted this argument.
You did good. Sooner or later this will catch up with the culprits, and there will be nothing to wash their hands with. For now, do not be discouraged up and keep restating the facts whenever an opportunity arises.
I appreciate your efforts. The mandates in retrospect in a way have been good for me. Why? As much as my life has been crushed, I now have a healthy distrust of the pharmaceutical industry. Prior, I had never questioned medical industry. Now I'm very well versed in their corruption and will heavily question all therapeutics for the rest of my life. Due to this, I'll likely live longer.
3 years ago I thought Del Bigtree was a nutter (no real basis for that judgment). Now I consider people like him and RFK to be amongst the best of humanity.
So foolish to coerce the population as it automatically wakes a certain percentage of people up to their corruption.
Follow-up Email to the Australian Human Rights Commission (18.01.2023)
ATTN: Communication Unit
I did not receive any response from the Commissioner to my email dated 17 Aug 2022.
Could you please advice whether this non-response was intentional or just an oversight?
Regarding another matter for the attention of the Commission, I noticed the following statement on your website at https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/human-rights-considerations-vaccine-passports-and-certificates:
“Vaccines are effective in saving lives, and the right to life is a human right.”
In the context of vaccine mandates this statement is misleading, since the opposite is also true: vaccines are known to kill a small percentage of people. Vaccination mandates, by applying significant economic and social-opportunity coercion to vaccinate, are expected to cause a percentage of vaccine-related deaths, thereby extinguishing some lives, and the right to life is a human right.
For the sake of fair characterisation of the impact of vaccine mandates on human rights, I suggest informing the reader of the likelihood that the right to life may also be violated by mandatory vaccination policies.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
https://philpeople.org/profiles/michael-kowalik
Normal people believe, correctly, that consent is necessarily Free consent, without any coercion. The authorities believe that when you are not pinned down and forcibly injected but only partially/economically coerced, this still leaves room for valid consent, so this ambiguity in the meaning of “consent” needs to be addressed, made explicit and resolved. Partial consent is practically meaningless, because only free, non-coerced consent can protect you from crimes against humanity, from abuse. Any crack in the scope of consent can be exploited against you.
I had a lengthy email exchange with my employer before I was fired for being unable to give "completely voluntary" (as stated on consent form) consent.
Part of what I said was:
"1. It’s not possible to give completely voluntary consent to something which is not voluntary.
2. It’s not possible to give valid consent whilst being coerced.
3. It’s not possible for me to get the vaccine without giving valid consent."
My strategy was to simply say that I would take the vaccine on the condition that the chemist understood that I was being coerced and that in no way did I want to take it. They simply ignored me.
I made a complaint to AHPRA who forwarded it to my state regulators. The complaint was essentially that the chemist who injected my entire workforce a) knew that my workmates had no choice b) knew that the consent forms were not valid.
The chemist literally argued that it wasn't his responsibility to gain consent. That my workplace had gathered the consent forms prior to his arrival. He had outsourced his responsibility to gain consent from each individual. The regulator accepted this argument.
You did good. Sooner or later this will catch up with the culprits, and there will be nothing to wash their hands with. For now, do not be discouraged up and keep restating the facts whenever an opportunity arises.
I appreciate your efforts. The mandates in retrospect in a way have been good for me. Why? As much as my life has been crushed, I now have a healthy distrust of the pharmaceutical industry. Prior, I had never questioned medical industry. Now I'm very well versed in their corruption and will heavily question all therapeutics for the rest of my life. Due to this, I'll likely live longer.
3 years ago I thought Del Bigtree was a nutter (no real basis for that judgment). Now I consider people like him and RFK to be amongst the best of humanity.
So foolish to coerce the population as it automatically wakes a certain percentage of people up to their corruption.
Very articulate expression of the ethical principles being foundational to ensure bodily autonomy, medical freedom and the right to life.
Excellent.