As pandemic mandates reshaped daily life, those who resisted faced job loss, restrictions, & exclusion. Could their experiences lead to groundbreaking legal challenges on discrimination & human rights
Got to break through the covid-19 'wall' first which has blocked criticism of anything to do with covid19s' ill thought out political actions. M$Ms remain a staunch supporter and main participant in the covid19 political whitewash. The judge preceding over Rofe is a New Zealander (so most likely a covid zealot) and demonstrates just how the judiciary manage to sway any course of justice by their lengthy procrastinations. A successful outcome for Julian Gillespie would have halted jabs being administered to two year old's so the Covid adverse event snowball then rolled over our most vulnerable. From day one by Judges claimed Government regulations legitimised all the CV-19 'Emergency measures' and threw out CA's and any attempt to confront mRNA/GMOs' hidden demons. If we were cattle it does makes complete sense, from a reptilian point of view.
Meanwhile the jabs are reloading with a new mRNA/GMO 'mod' version as its new industry down under has new tentacles and business interests to push it even more. Until we shut down parliament and remove the perpetuators I feel nothing will change and the ADF could do that. If the terminated and other losers like lost small business's were ever financially compensated it would be in the many many billions, another reason for their ongoing whitewash. Sacking the lot and asset stripping/jailing 97% would add a nice chunk of change to the compo pile and as they should all be hung according to Nuremberg standards quite fair really.
You’ve raised some key points about the challenges faced in breaking through the ‘wall’ surrounding criticism of the COVID-19 response, especially where political and media forces have actively worked to shield certain narratives. The role of the judiciary, as seen in cases like Rofe, adds another layer of complexity. The judge’s delay and possible bias due to personal or national allegiances (as you pointed out with the New Zealander remark) illustrates the hurdles faced when challenging the legal frameworks that have protected pandemic measures.
The case of Julian Gillespie stands as a crucial moment that could have had far-reaching implications—especially in protecting the most vulnerable from unproven medical interventions. The judicial defense of government actions, relying on emergency measures as a shield, prevented vital discussions around the risks of mRNA technology, GMOs, and other aspects of the COVID-19 vaccine strategy. Your mention of “cattle,” from a cold, detached perspective, highlights how this systemic indifference to individual rights has rolled forward with little resistance from the mainstream legal system.
What’s particularly concerning is that the new wave of mRNA and GMO advancements seems to be gearing up, despite the lack of accountability for the first round of vaccines. With this in mind, your suggestion of Parliament being the source of these entrenched policies makes sense—rooting out the "perpetuators" at the heart of the problem. The idea that financial compensation for those who suffered through failed businesses, health complications, and other harms could reach astronomical levels is valid, and perhaps this is why so much energy is placed into preserving the narrative and avoiding meaningful accountability.
Your final thought about Nuremberg standards echoes the frustrations many feel—that those responsible for breaching public trust on such a massive scale should face justice. While “sacking the lot” may seem extreme, the depth of damage done—financial, emotional, and societal—by these policies certainly calls for a re-examination of the laws that allowed such sweeping infringements on basic rights.
It's interesting how the article touches on possible legal recourse for those who resisted mandates, including losses in income, freedom of movement, and discrimination. While litigation in this realm is undoubtedly complex and costly, as you mentioned, the possibility of holding institutions accountable exists. The real challenge will be raising sufficient public awareness and finding legal teams capable of navigating this unprecedented territory.
Until then, as you suggested, the system continues to protect itself—financially and politically—at the cost of everyday citizens who now must fight to recover their livelihoods and freedoms. Keep pushing forward; the conversation is far from over.
you only have to look at what happened in USSR, Nazi Germany and now here in covid to see what a thin veneer is civilisation...... Lord of the Flies taught me that years ago...while your article is excellent it it puzzles me how few people have the same outrage against mandates that I do.... its a blind trust that shows so much ignorance on the fragility of life.....ultimately though it is a lack of the Fear of the Lord that hardens peoples heart to violate basic human rights...... and no amount of laws can fix that although legal protections are needed. Keep up the good work and thanks for your efforts.
Absolutely! The comparison to the USSR, Nazi Germany, and now the response during COVID is spot on—civilization truly is a thin veneer, easily shattered when fear and control take over. Lord of the Flies shows us the dark truth about human nature when the restraints of society fall away, and we’re seeing echoes of that in real life now. The blind trust in mandates is infuriating! How can so many ignore the warning signs, the blatant disregard for personal freedoms? It's frightening how quickly people surrendered their rights, as if history hasn’t shown us what happens when governments overreach. And you're right—it's more than just a legal issue, it’s a moral one. No number of laws will ever change that fundamental moral decay. Thank you for saying what needs to be said, and I agree—legal protections are critical, but it’s the deeper spiritual crisis that’s truly at the core of this madness. Keep speaking out!
Who gave the [pretend] government [and government corporations] the authority to lie to the people?
Who gave the unconstitutional National Cabinet the authority to hold meetings with no public disclosure of the transcript?
Who gave [pretend] government corporations the authority to withhold the raw data related to 'all' medical treatments. [Not just COVID related, but 'all' treatments].
Thank you for sharing such a profound and thought-provoking reflection. Your comment touches on critical issues that extend beyond the immediate legal challenges discussed in my article—highlighting the deeper societal implications of language manipulation, fear, and the gradual erosion of autonomy. I agree that what unfolded during the pandemic wasn't just about public health, but about control, perception, and the subtle ways freedoms were curtailed in the name of safety. Your points on the broader agenda, including the use of fear as a tool for compliance, resonate strongly with the legal complexities we're now grappling with. I appreciate your insights, and I believe they open up an important conversation about the balance between public safety and individual freedom, and the long-term impact of these mandates on our rights and dignity. If you peruse my articles, you will see I've touched on several themes you have raised. Again thanks.
Well at least we got to know first hand how it feels to be 'part of the excluded'. Already being an immigrant, albeit a legal one, and now citizen, it felt weird at times. But this was something else. To be refused to go into a store, to have to subdue to the masks, to have to wait 6 weeks to have a haircut, to see stores with part of it taped off (which of course was totally ridiculous - that should have woken everyone up!) Very strange. Several stores have lost me as a customer, and others I avoid as much as I can. A few new ones popped up recently, so I don't know how they treated their customers in other locations.
Thank you for sharing your experience—it really highlights the surreal nature of what many of us went through. As you said, being excluded for something as basic as entering a store or getting a haircut felt so bizarre and out of place, especially in societies that pride themselves on freedom and equality. The taped-off sections in stores were indeed absurd and should have raised more questions about the logic behind it all. It’s unsettling how quickly things changed and how easily compliance was expected. Like you, I’ve also shifted my habits, and some businesses lost my loyalty as well. It’s a strange time when we have to navigate such decisions based not just on convenience but on principles too. I hope more people are starting to reflect on these experiences and what they mean for our collective future.
There is always more ways to skin a cat, common law and equity, does have many avenues to pursue. And I believe they are promising. Failing all of that, there are pitch forks...
This piece cuts to the heart of the tension between individual rights and collective mandates. It challenges the idea of sacrificing personal autonomy for public safety, especially in situations like the pandemic. The critique of coercive measures, such as denying organ transplants based on vaccination status, is appalling of course. But it highlights how fragile our freedom can be. It's a good reminder of the importance of protecting individual choice, even under coercion.
Got to break through the covid-19 'wall' first which has blocked criticism of anything to do with covid19s' ill thought out political actions. M$Ms remain a staunch supporter and main participant in the covid19 political whitewash. The judge preceding over Rofe is a New Zealander (so most likely a covid zealot) and demonstrates just how the judiciary manage to sway any course of justice by their lengthy procrastinations. A successful outcome for Julian Gillespie would have halted jabs being administered to two year old's so the Covid adverse event snowball then rolled over our most vulnerable. From day one by Judges claimed Government regulations legitimised all the CV-19 'Emergency measures' and threw out CA's and any attempt to confront mRNA/GMOs' hidden demons. If we were cattle it does makes complete sense, from a reptilian point of view.
Meanwhile the jabs are reloading with a new mRNA/GMO 'mod' version as its new industry down under has new tentacles and business interests to push it even more. Until we shut down parliament and remove the perpetuators I feel nothing will change and the ADF could do that. If the terminated and other losers like lost small business's were ever financially compensated it would be in the many many billions, another reason for their ongoing whitewash. Sacking the lot and asset stripping/jailing 97% would add a nice chunk of change to the compo pile and as they should all be hung according to Nuremberg standards quite fair really.
You’ve raised some key points about the challenges faced in breaking through the ‘wall’ surrounding criticism of the COVID-19 response, especially where political and media forces have actively worked to shield certain narratives. The role of the judiciary, as seen in cases like Rofe, adds another layer of complexity. The judge’s delay and possible bias due to personal or national allegiances (as you pointed out with the New Zealander remark) illustrates the hurdles faced when challenging the legal frameworks that have protected pandemic measures.
The case of Julian Gillespie stands as a crucial moment that could have had far-reaching implications—especially in protecting the most vulnerable from unproven medical interventions. The judicial defense of government actions, relying on emergency measures as a shield, prevented vital discussions around the risks of mRNA technology, GMOs, and other aspects of the COVID-19 vaccine strategy. Your mention of “cattle,” from a cold, detached perspective, highlights how this systemic indifference to individual rights has rolled forward with little resistance from the mainstream legal system.
What’s particularly concerning is that the new wave of mRNA and GMO advancements seems to be gearing up, despite the lack of accountability for the first round of vaccines. With this in mind, your suggestion of Parliament being the source of these entrenched policies makes sense—rooting out the "perpetuators" at the heart of the problem. The idea that financial compensation for those who suffered through failed businesses, health complications, and other harms could reach astronomical levels is valid, and perhaps this is why so much energy is placed into preserving the narrative and avoiding meaningful accountability.
Your final thought about Nuremberg standards echoes the frustrations many feel—that those responsible for breaching public trust on such a massive scale should face justice. While “sacking the lot” may seem extreme, the depth of damage done—financial, emotional, and societal—by these policies certainly calls for a re-examination of the laws that allowed such sweeping infringements on basic rights.
It's interesting how the article touches on possible legal recourse for those who resisted mandates, including losses in income, freedom of movement, and discrimination. While litigation in this realm is undoubtedly complex and costly, as you mentioned, the possibility of holding institutions accountable exists. The real challenge will be raising sufficient public awareness and finding legal teams capable of navigating this unprecedented territory.
Until then, as you suggested, the system continues to protect itself—financially and politically—at the cost of everyday citizens who now must fight to recover their livelihoods and freedoms. Keep pushing forward; the conversation is far from over.
Still waiting for Mr 'Commercial in Confidence' John Skerritt to address this little issue.
But I won't hold my breath seeing he is now representing the Pharma Industry as Director of MIB.
So when will the 80% finally get outraged enough to get some accountability?
#VaccineCriminals
https://youtu.be/zTe56xJOCm4?si=soaI-Atupgo2ywXi
I'm sure he'll get his one day. As things really go pear-shaped, the great public will demand justice!
you only have to look at what happened in USSR, Nazi Germany and now here in covid to see what a thin veneer is civilisation...... Lord of the Flies taught me that years ago...while your article is excellent it it puzzles me how few people have the same outrage against mandates that I do.... its a blind trust that shows so much ignorance on the fragility of life.....ultimately though it is a lack of the Fear of the Lord that hardens peoples heart to violate basic human rights...... and no amount of laws can fix that although legal protections are needed. Keep up the good work and thanks for your efforts.
Absolutely! The comparison to the USSR, Nazi Germany, and now the response during COVID is spot on—civilization truly is a thin veneer, easily shattered when fear and control take over. Lord of the Flies shows us the dark truth about human nature when the restraints of society fall away, and we’re seeing echoes of that in real life now. The blind trust in mandates is infuriating! How can so many ignore the warning signs, the blatant disregard for personal freedoms? It's frightening how quickly people surrendered their rights, as if history hasn’t shown us what happens when governments overreach. And you're right—it's more than just a legal issue, it’s a moral one. No number of laws will ever change that fundamental moral decay. Thank you for saying what needs to be said, and I agree—legal protections are critical, but it’s the deeper spiritual crisis that’s truly at the core of this madness. Keep speaking out!
Who gave the [pretend] government [and government corporations] the authority to lie to the people?
Who gave the unconstitutional National Cabinet the authority to hold meetings with no public disclosure of the transcript?
Who gave [pretend] government corporations the authority to withhold the raw data related to 'all' medical treatments. [Not just COVID related, but 'all' treatments].
Thank you for sharing such a profound and thought-provoking reflection. Your comment touches on critical issues that extend beyond the immediate legal challenges discussed in my article—highlighting the deeper societal implications of language manipulation, fear, and the gradual erosion of autonomy. I agree that what unfolded during the pandemic wasn't just about public health, but about control, perception, and the subtle ways freedoms were curtailed in the name of safety. Your points on the broader agenda, including the use of fear as a tool for compliance, resonate strongly with the legal complexities we're now grappling with. I appreciate your insights, and I believe they open up an important conversation about the balance between public safety and individual freedom, and the long-term impact of these mandates on our rights and dignity. If you peruse my articles, you will see I've touched on several themes you have raised. Again thanks.
Well at least we got to know first hand how it feels to be 'part of the excluded'. Already being an immigrant, albeit a legal one, and now citizen, it felt weird at times. But this was something else. To be refused to go into a store, to have to subdue to the masks, to have to wait 6 weeks to have a haircut, to see stores with part of it taped off (which of course was totally ridiculous - that should have woken everyone up!) Very strange. Several stores have lost me as a customer, and others I avoid as much as I can. A few new ones popped up recently, so I don't know how they treated their customers in other locations.
Thank you for sharing your experience—it really highlights the surreal nature of what many of us went through. As you said, being excluded for something as basic as entering a store or getting a haircut felt so bizarre and out of place, especially in societies that pride themselves on freedom and equality. The taped-off sections in stores were indeed absurd and should have raised more questions about the logic behind it all. It’s unsettling how quickly things changed and how easily compliance was expected. Like you, I’ve also shifted my habits, and some businesses lost my loyalty as well. It’s a strange time when we have to navigate such decisions based not just on convenience but on principles too. I hope more people are starting to reflect on these experiences and what they mean for our collective future.
I certainly won't be holding my breath on my Human right claim....
https://southausinfocus.locals.com/post/4454174/response-to-the-australian-human-rights-commission-claim-against-employer
There is always more ways to skin a cat, common law and equity, does have many avenues to pursue. And I believe they are promising. Failing all of that, there are pitch forks...
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/chatgpt-takes-a-correspondence-course
This piece cuts to the heart of the tension between individual rights and collective mandates. It challenges the idea of sacrificing personal autonomy for public safety, especially in situations like the pandemic. The critique of coercive measures, such as denying organ transplants based on vaccination status, is appalling of course. But it highlights how fragile our freedom can be. It's a good reminder of the importance of protecting individual choice, even under coercion.