Connect with us

COVID-19

Australian court rules COVID jab mandate for first responders violated Human Rights Act

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Mining billionaire Clive Palmer, founder of the United Australia Party, funded the action and said afterwards that he was willing to back other class actions by affected workers. He called for the presidents and executives of the Queensland Police and Ambulance unions to “do the honourable thing and resign from their roles

In another blow to the legitimacy of Australian governments’ anti-COVID-19 measures, among the most severe in the world, a judge in the Queensland Supreme Court has ruled that the COVID shot mandates for police and ambulance staff were unlawful.

The judge, Glenn Martin, found that there was a breach under the Human Rights Act: specifically the right not to be subjected to non-consensual medical treatment. He ruled there was a failure “to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision,” rendering the mandate unlawful.

The judge ordered that the police commissioner no longer take steps to enforce the mandates or continue any disciplinary proceedings. He ordered that the director general of Queensland Health also be restrained from any enforcement of the vaccine direction, and that no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against those applicants.

READ: South Australian court rules employers who mandated COVID jabs can be held liable for injuries

Although on the face of it the decision has potentially far reaching consequences for the many Australian workers who refused to comply with mandates, the finding was based on a technicality, rather than a matter of ethical or legal principle.

Health Minister Shannon Fentiman said the ruling was made “in relation to how the directives were made, not the directives themselves.” She said the judge found that limiting people’s human rights in having healthcare imposed upon them without consent was “justified because of the pandemic.”

It indicates that Australian judges continue to work on the basis that COVID-19 was a deadly pandemic, which justified suppressing individuals’ right to make decisions about their own health. Contrary to that assumption, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which compiles its records from death certificates, found that 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of deaths from respiratory diseases since records have been kept.

So where was the pandemic? The answer is in computer modelling that turned out to be totally wrong. An example of this irresponsible use of modelling, rather than actual evidence, was referenced in the case. The police service claimed that “modelling” indicated that Queensland Police Service (QPS) personnel would have over two million contacts with the community every year. The judge criticized this, noting that it was for 2019/20 and “did not provide any predictions of the effect of the pandemic on the QPS.” Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll resigned the day before the decision was handed down.

All Australian state governments relied on deeply flawed modelling, especially the former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews.

  1. The PCR test used to identify COVID “cases” was not suitable as a diagnostic tool, as the inventor Kary Mullis noted.
  2. Because the specifics of the Sars-CoV-2 virus were not available in the early stages due to Chinese reluctance to provide details, the PCR test was based on an old flu virus. The FDA admitted that the test was developed not with actual samples of COVID-19, but with what appears to be genetic material from a common cold virus. Tellingly, in 2019 the ABS recorded 4,124 deaths from flu. In 2021 it recorded only two.
  3. According to the Worldometer, 80 percent of people in Australia who tested positive to COVID-19 experienced no symptoms. This meant either that the test was flawed or their immune systems had dealt with it.
  4. Mortality from respiratory disease in the period when there was supposed to be a pandemic was unusually low. According to the ABS deaths from COVID-19 in 2020-21 were under 2,000 – far lower than the 4,124 in 2019 from flu.
  5. The epidemiological modelling was based on “cases,” following positive testing from the PCR or lateral flow tests. This resulted in an absurdly inflated picture of the risks.

Even if it is accepted that these were understandable mistakes, the fact remains that the Australian authorities got it completely wrong; that should have legal implications for the people who lost their livelihoods. Courts, after all, typically focus on evidence, not speculation, even when that guessing comes from complex computer modelling.

Mining billionaire Clive Palmer, founder of the United Australia Party, funded the action and said afterwards that he was willing to back other class actions by affected workers. He called for the presidents and executives of the Queensland Police and Ambulance unions to “do the honourable thing and resign from their roles in supporting the decisions to have officers vaccinate against their wishes.”

If there is to be widespread justice, however, it would seem to be necessary to go beyond just the wording of the vaccine mandate directives and expose how wrong the authorities were when they imposed savage restrictions on the Australian work force and community.

Until judges realise that their assumptions about the “pandemic” are wrong they will continue to put a false idea of the common good above respect for individual rights.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that Ontario resident George Katerberg has launched a legal challenge against the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for banning roadside billboards with social or political messages. Mr. Katerberg believes that the Ministry’s policies go too far and undermine the freedom of expression of all Ontarians.

This case goes back to March 2024, when Mr. Katerberg, a retired HVAC technician, rented a billboard on Highway 17 near Thessalon, Ontario, that featured images of public health officials and politicians alongside a message critical of their statements about vaccines.

After the Ministry rejected his proposed billboard several times on the grounds it promoted hatred, a constitutional challenge was launched with lawyers provided by the Justice Centre. Mr. Katerberg’s lawyers argued that the Ministry’s position was unreasonable, and that it did not balance Charter rights with the purposes of relevant legislation.

The Ministry later admitted that the sign did not violate hate speech guidelines and agreed to reconsider erecting the billboard.

However, in April 2025, the Ministry quietly amended its policy manual to restrict signs along “bush highways” to those only promoting goods, services, or authorized community events.

The new guidelines are sweeping and comprehensive, barring any messaging that the Ministry claims could “demean, denigrate, or disparage one or more identifiable persons, groups of persons, firms, organizations, industrial or commercial activities, professions, entities, products or services…”

Relying on this new policy, the Ministry once again denied Mr. Katerberg’s revised billboard.

Constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury explains, “By amending the Highway Corridor Management Manual to effectively prohibit signage that promotes political and social causes, the Ministry of Transportation has turned Mr. Katerberg’s fight to raise his sign into a fight on behalf of all Ontarians who wish to express support for a political or social cause.”

No date has yet been assigned for a hearing on this matter.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility

Published on

Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity

What was once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” now has hard data behind it.

A new peer-reviewed study out of the Czech Republic has uncovered a disturbing trend: in 2022, women vaccinated against COVID-19 had 33% FEWER successful conceptions per 1,000 women compared to those who were unvaccinated.

A “successful conception” means a pregnancy that led to a live birth nine months later.

The study wasn’t small. It analyzed data from 1.3 million women aged 18 to 39.

Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity.

First, let’s talk about the study.

It was published by Manniche and colleagues in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal respected for its focus on patient safety and pharmacovigilance.

The study was conducted from January 2021 to December 2023 and examined 1.3 million women aged 18–39. By the end of 2021, approximately 70% of them had received at least one COVID-19 vaccination, with 96% of the vaccinated cohort having received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

By 2022, a stark difference was clear.

The vaccinated cohort averaged around 4 successful conceptions per 1,000 women per month.

That’s a staggering 33% LESS than the 6 per 1,000 seen in the unvaccinated group.

This means that for every 2 vaccinated women who successfully conceived and delivered a baby, 3 unvaccinated women did the same.

In 2022, unvaccinated women were 1.5 times MORE likely to have a successful conception.

Again, that’s a conception that led to a live birth nine months later.

The authors did not jump to the conclusion that their study proved causation. They cited that other factors may have played a role, such as self-selection bias

However, the researchers noted that self-selection bias does not explain the timing and scale of the observed drop in fertility.

Moreover, birth rates in the Czech Republic dropped from 1.83 per 1,000 women in 2021 to 1.37 in 2024, adding further evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines may be contributing to the decline in fertility.

That downward trend, the researchers argue, supports the hypothesis that something beyond individual decision-making may be affecting conception rates.

As such, they argue that the study’s results warrant a closer and more thorough examination of the impact of mass vaccination.

If this study holds true, and vaccinated women are really much less likely to have successful conceptions, the implications for humanity are massive.

Millions of babies could be missing each year as a result of COVID vaccination, and recent data from Europe and beyond already point to a deeply disturbing trend.

NOTE: Europe experienced a sharper decline in births than usual from 2021 to 2023.

Live births fell from 4.09 million in 2021 to 3.67 million in 2023, marking a 10.3% decline in just two years.

The new Czech study adds to growing evidence that COVID vaccines may be contributing to a dramatic decline in fertility, just as many feared all along.

As Elon Musk warns, “If there are no humans, there’s no humanity.”

Whether the shots are the cause or not, the trend is real—and it’s accelerating.

It’s time to stop dismissing the signals and start investigating the cause.


Thanks for reading. I hope this report gave you real value. This is a critically important topic that deserves attention.

If you appreciate my work and want to help keep it going, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

99% of readers get this content for free. But just $5/month from the 1% keeps it flowing for everyone else.

If this work matters to you, this is the best way to support it.

Be the 1% who makes it possible.

Catch the rest of today’s biggest headlines at VigilantFox.com.

See More Stories

Continue Reading

Trending

X