|
|
Post by matte on Jun 4, 2021 18:34:55 GMT 10
People are so caught up in what is happening in Victoria and mandatory vaccines for aged care workers that there has been very little reporting on the other big announcement (almost like it was never uttered).
Scott Morrison said today that digital vaccine certificates, linked to a mobile wallet, will be introduced next month and it'll be up to the states and other organisations (e.g. airlines) what their policies are around it.
Why is this being ignored by the media? This is an infringement on the rights of citizens in Australia.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 4, 2021 19:32:53 GMT 10
You’ve already got a thread going on this topic Matt. Whassamadder? Not enough takers? As for vaccine passports, eat your heart out. They’re on the way. It’s the comeback of the vaccination certificates of yesteryear when you couldn’t travel without the little vaccination certificates showing you’d been jabbed against yellow fever, smallpox etc. Nobody whinged about the “rights of the citizen in Australia”. If anything these documents were a tangible sign that a fundamental right was being protected and that’s the right to be protected against disease.
But what are these “rights of the citizen in Australia”? Where is the Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution that sets out these rights? You might answer that these rights are “self-evident” and I might even agree with you but I’d also add that in their Declaration of Independence in which the Americans declared human rights to be “self-evident” they nevertheless found it necessary to make those rights explicit in their Constitution. There is only one section of the Australian Constitution that touches on the rights of the individual and that’s section 116 which is the “freedom of and from religion” clause.
There are no constitutionally guaranteed human rights in Australia apart from 116, and Pauline Hanson, one of your heroes, wants it abolished.
|
|
|
|
Post by matte on Jun 4, 2021 19:38:05 GMT 10
Section 117 of the Constitution:
"A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State."
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 4, 2021 19:51:29 GMT 10
Yes but vaccination certificates will apply nation wide. So how would that conflict with 117?
Very boring when you erect your straw man distractions Matt.
Get ready to eat your heart out when the vaccination certificates come in. Although I must say that your “outrage” needs work. You’ve lost your “outrage” mojo.
|
|
|
|
Post by matte on Jun 4, 2021 19:55:38 GMT 10
But if a subject of the Queen in one state does not have to have a vaccine, then that state cannot discriminate.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 4, 2021 19:59:15 GMT 10
Argue that one with the lawyers. Vaccination certificates are coming. And yours is a voice crying in the wilderness.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Jun 4, 2021 20:31:05 GMT 10
Argue that one with the lawyers. Vaccination certificates are coming. And yours is a voice crying in the wilderness. You cannot force unwanted medical treatment on people and it already has been fought in court in Kalgoorlie decades ago over blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 4, 2021 23:41:02 GMT 10
Nobody’s forcing anyone. But airlines are going to say “No vaccination certificate? No boarding pass” and if you want to work in a field like aged care you’re going to have to have a vaccination certificate. No vaccination certificate? No job in aged care. And that’ll just be for starters  Oh and err ... good luck challenging that in court!  |
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Jun 5, 2021 2:07:45 GMT 10
I have 2 sisters working in age care. I'll ask them tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jun 5, 2021 5:31:09 GMT 10
The alt right are big on their civil liberties yet quite happy to impose their moral beliefs on others freedoms.
|
|
