When judicial bias replaces impartiality, trust crumbles, and democracy teeters. Australia’s judiciary now faces this risk, threatening national stability and the very integrity of the rule of law.
Re “What happens when the institution we depend on to guard truth and justice begins to protect itself instead?”
The judiciary now seems to be an agent of the state. What happened to separation of powers?
We’ve seen throughout ‘Covid’ how the courts failed to protect the people from mandatory medical interventions, in a supposed ‘free country’.
The courts apparently had no idea that practitioners have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination. Did anyone ‘in authority’ speak up about this?
It’s an absolute shambles here - how do we bring the specific individuals responsible for this mess to account?
And on what basis are we obliged to obey ‘the law’? Do we not have an obligation to refuse unjust laws?
We are being strangled by more and more legislation being imposed by those people sitting in the parliaments. I didn’t consent to this. When did these people become our rulers rather than our servants?
This entire situation is out of control, how do we effectively push back against tyranny?
History is littered with the answer to your question,
"What happens when the institution we depend on to guard truth and justice begins to protect itself instead?”
So, historically, when the judiciary—the institution tasked with upholding truth and justice—begins to prioritize self-preservation over impartiality, the results have often been catastrophic, with impacts rippling far beyond the courtrooms.
And a few historic results are described within the article, titled "The Perils of a Judiciary That Fails in Its Duty"
The Covid mRNA/GMO inoculation of the majority of the Australian population was completely illegal.
This bookmark from 2021 still works and explained it very well. A corrupt judiciary always goes with the territory as it has historically and so harbours the worst type of 'human beings'. Power corrupts along with extreme wealth. CJ Mortimer is a blow in from NZ where all dissent was totally crushed and Government and Judiciary acted as one just like here. Our complete judiciary need to be replaced by a constitutional AI that is programmed for fairness, economy, justice and the Commonwealth of Oz.
It is now proven by the criminal conspiracy of Rofe and JP Mortimer the 'Law' is not fair, just or worthy of the Australian people. Few could even front the cash for a scab 'Lawyer' and the little good they do.
Darren Dixon;
'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.'
Was it not a feature of the original 1946 Nuremberg Trials that no medical procedure can be forced upon any person without their consent? This was agreed and signed up to all the attending countries and should still be extant today.
Its this section under powers of Government if my Roman numerology is correct:
Section 51.23a which I believe was the result of a referend in 1946 post Nuremburg.
(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:. link above explains it better than I can either way it failed us.
John and BigpondGeefor, your exchange touches on critical points about the intersection of law, ethics, and public trust, particularly in the context of historical and constitutional safeguards against medical coercion. The invocation of Section 51(xxiiiA) and its relevance to protecting individual autonomy is a profound reminder of the framers’ foresight in anticipating potential overreach by governments. It underscores the need for a judiciary that not only enforces the law but upholds its spirit, particularly in matters affecting fundamental rights.
Peter’s reference to the Nuremberg Code further enriches the discussion, as it highlights how global lessons from past atrocities were codified to prevent coercion in medical practices. These principles, enshrined in both international and domestic legal frameworks, are meant to serve as a bulwark against overreach—yet, as John rightly notes, their application depends on the integrity of those tasked with interpretation and enforcement.
The concern about judicial impartiality raised in the article and echoed in your discussion is deeply relevant. A judiciary perceived as prioritizing self-preservation or governmental alignment over ethical accountability risks undermining public trust and stability. This reinforces the argument that robust oversight mechanisms and public engagement in legal processes are essential to safeguarding democratic principles.
Your dialogue also raises an intriguing idea about the potential role of advanced technologies, such as AI, in ensuring fairness and impartiality in judicial decision-making. While this concept requires careful deliberation to avoid unintended consequences, it reflects a forward-thinking approach to addressing systemic challenges within the judiciary.
Ultimately, this conversation underscores that trust in the judiciary is not just about compliance with the letter of the law but adherence to its ethical core. Reclaiming and strengthening these principles is vital—not just for justice but for preserving the fabric of a democratic society. Thank you for shedding light on these crucial issues with such depth and thoughtfulness.
Thanks Gas, the integrity and respect of the judiciary are indeed central to the propriety of our entire system. However more direct to my concern is that either the very structure of our Parliament is faulty or most of our parliamentarians have broken their oaths to serve the people who elected hem and pay their salaries. How can such things as the BIO Security Act 1911 be amended with no word to the people affected, our Constitution overridden, empowering the health minister to act as a total dictator without effective checks and balances, to be remotely legal?
You raise an essential point about the intersection of judicial integrity and parliamentary accountability. The judiciary relies on a framework created and upheld by Parliament, making it crucial that lawmakers honor their oaths to serve the public transparently and uphold constitutional safeguards. The amendments to the Biosecurity Act and the broad powers granted during the pandemic do warrant scrutiny, as they challenge the balance of power and the democratic principle of accountability. Ensuring that such sweeping changes are subject to public consultation and effective checks is vital to maintaining trust in both our legal and political systems. Thank you for highlighting this critical issue.
That big club's members had better study a bit of history. Because when their 'big feet' start stepping on too many toes, things never, and I mean never, work out for them.
Re “What happens when the institution we depend on to guard truth and justice begins to protect itself instead?”
The judiciary now seems to be an agent of the state. What happened to separation of powers?
We’ve seen throughout ‘Covid’ how the courts failed to protect the people from mandatory medical interventions, in a supposed ‘free country’.
The courts apparently had no idea that practitioners have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination. Did anyone ‘in authority’ speak up about this?
It’s an absolute shambles here - how do we bring the specific individuals responsible for this mess to account?
And on what basis are we obliged to obey ‘the law’? Do we not have an obligation to refuse unjust laws?
We are being strangled by more and more legislation being imposed by those people sitting in the parliaments. I didn’t consent to this. When did these people become our rulers rather than our servants?
This entire situation is out of control, how do we effectively push back against tyranny?
Hi Elizabeth,
History is littered with the answer to your question,
"What happens when the institution we depend on to guard truth and justice begins to protect itself instead?”
So, historically, when the judiciary—the institution tasked with upholding truth and justice—begins to prioritize self-preservation over impartiality, the results have often been catastrophic, with impacts rippling far beyond the courtrooms.
And a few historic results are described within the article, titled "The Perils of a Judiciary That Fails in Its Duty"
The Covid mRNA/GMO inoculation of the majority of the Australian population was completely illegal.
This bookmark from 2021 still works and explained it very well. A corrupt judiciary always goes with the territory as it has historically and so harbours the worst type of 'human beings'. Power corrupts along with extreme wealth. CJ Mortimer is a blow in from NZ where all dissent was totally crushed and Government and Judiciary acted as one just like here. Our complete judiciary need to be replaced by a constitutional AI that is programmed for fairness, economy, justice and the Commonwealth of Oz.
It is now proven by the criminal conspiracy of Rofe and JP Mortimer the 'Law' is not fair, just or worthy of the Australian people. Few could even front the cash for a scab 'Lawyer' and the little good they do.
Darren Dixon;
'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.'
https://principia-scientific.com/australian-high-court-rules-the-constitution-bans-mandatory-vaccination/
Was it not a feature of the original 1946 Nuremberg Trials that no medical procedure can be forced upon any person without their consent? This was agreed and signed up to all the attending countries and should still be extant today.
Its this section under powers of Government if my Roman numerology is correct:
Section 51.23a which I believe was the result of a referend in 1946 post Nuremburg.
(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:. link above explains it better than I can either way it failed us.
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html
John and BigpondGeefor, your exchange touches on critical points about the intersection of law, ethics, and public trust, particularly in the context of historical and constitutional safeguards against medical coercion. The invocation of Section 51(xxiiiA) and its relevance to protecting individual autonomy is a profound reminder of the framers’ foresight in anticipating potential overreach by governments. It underscores the need for a judiciary that not only enforces the law but upholds its spirit, particularly in matters affecting fundamental rights.
Peter’s reference to the Nuremberg Code further enriches the discussion, as it highlights how global lessons from past atrocities were codified to prevent coercion in medical practices. These principles, enshrined in both international and domestic legal frameworks, are meant to serve as a bulwark against overreach—yet, as John rightly notes, their application depends on the integrity of those tasked with interpretation and enforcement.
The concern about judicial impartiality raised in the article and echoed in your discussion is deeply relevant. A judiciary perceived as prioritizing self-preservation or governmental alignment over ethical accountability risks undermining public trust and stability. This reinforces the argument that robust oversight mechanisms and public engagement in legal processes are essential to safeguarding democratic principles.
Your dialogue also raises an intriguing idea about the potential role of advanced technologies, such as AI, in ensuring fairness and impartiality in judicial decision-making. While this concept requires careful deliberation to avoid unintended consequences, it reflects a forward-thinking approach to addressing systemic challenges within the judiciary.
Ultimately, this conversation underscores that trust in the judiciary is not just about compliance with the letter of the law but adherence to its ethical core. Reclaiming and strengthening these principles is vital—not just for justice but for preserving the fabric of a democratic society. Thank you for shedding light on these crucial issues with such depth and thoughtfulness.
Thanks Gas, the integrity and respect of the judiciary are indeed central to the propriety of our entire system. However more direct to my concern is that either the very structure of our Parliament is faulty or most of our parliamentarians have broken their oaths to serve the people who elected hem and pay their salaries. How can such things as the BIO Security Act 1911 be amended with no word to the people affected, our Constitution overridden, empowering the health minister to act as a total dictator without effective checks and balances, to be remotely legal?
You raise an essential point about the intersection of judicial integrity and parliamentary accountability. The judiciary relies on a framework created and upheld by Parliament, making it crucial that lawmakers honor their oaths to serve the public transparently and uphold constitutional safeguards. The amendments to the Biosecurity Act and the broad powers granted during the pandemic do warrant scrutiny, as they challenge the balance of power and the democratic principle of accountability. Ensuring that such sweeping changes are subject to public consultation and effective checks is vital to maintaining trust in both our legal and political systems. Thank you for highlighting this critical issue.
It's a big club, and we ain't in it!
That big club's members had better study a bit of history. Because when their 'big feet' start stepping on too many toes, things never, and I mean never, work out for them.
Yes, they slip on their own shitz. And the People see The Emporer is Naked.