Police officers and Army personnel are currently knocking on people’s doors in the lockdown-postcode-areas of Victoria, pressuring people and demanding that they are tested for Covid19.
The question is: Do they have the right to do this? especially in the light that the tests for Covid19 are reported to be giving false positives and that there are mandatory or statutory quarantine requirements attached to a positive test result.
That is, these police and army officers believe that if you test positive, they may have the right to quarantine you in a quarantine facility.
Therefore, please acknowledge these grounds for your right of non-consent against testing.
First of all, any person who’s not invited to enter your property is trespassing and you can refer any intruder lawfully to your No Trespassing sign that you’ve posted, preferably at the boundary of your property and outside the entrance to your house.
According to the laws of Freedom of Information, can you provide one document that provides scientific, factual evidence of the testing procedure being used in Australia whether it 100%, positively identifies Covid19/SARS-CoV-2 or not any other type of coronavirus in a living human, beyond a reasonable doubt?
The department’s authorised staff searched their records and came back with this answer:
No relevant documents have been located. There is no test available that 100% positively identifies Covid19 in a living human beyond reasonable doubt as all diagnostic tests have a margin of error.
Therefore, the department’s reply can just as well be stated as follows:
There is no documented evidence that any Covid19 testing method is 100% accurate, and therefore the testing methods cannot guarantee that they will not give a false positive, or for that matter: a false negative result.
That response of the Department to the question about the veracity of Covid19 tests can be quoted to any trespassing police or army officer, whilst all-the-while you have insisted that you are not giving, and will not be giving your consent for having the test performed on you.
What’s “good for the goose, is good for the gander”, so our Federal Department of Health must come up with the same answer as Victoria’s Department of Health and Human Services.
It’s the false positive result to a test that would otherwise land you in a quarantine facility, let alone the prospect of being administered a vaccination that’s not proven safe. So, if such police and/or army officers try to insist that you have the test, say:
Can you provide a copy of your Medical Certificate that authorises you to conduct medical procedures?
Testing for a viral infection is a medical procedure!
The great majority – “99.99%” – of officers who’d be commissioned to come knocking at your door with test kits, will not be able to produce the copy of their Medical Certificate because they don’t have one. This also applies to testing stations.
Police and army officers are not certified by a Medical Certificate to perform medical procedures.
Still, since you’ve refused to give your consent for the test at this point, on the very rare occasion, these officers may still pressure you to be tested if they’ve been able to produce their copy of the Medical Certificate, or if you’re demanded a test at a testing station.
In these cases, question the testing attendant:
Does that (Medical Certificate you’ve got) provide you with an exemption against Article 7 of the Covenant on Human and Civil and Political Rights against medical experimentation?
Quote: Article 7 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”.
That Covenant is an international law and prevents medical experimentation being done on non-consenting people, as is this case where there’s no guarantee that any Covid19 test will not give a false positive, therefore if performed on you, it would be an experiment and prohibited by this law.
So: Memory Wise:
~No Medical Certificate
Granted! There are proposed penalties for refusing a test – up to $10,000.
I believe we’re covered by such laws as are quoted above, but such trespassing officers and attendants have been trained to do their job, so you’d have to be very assertive, and may also have to know your rights on whether you give them information to track you, which they can probably do anyway, knowing the non-consent technology they’ve got.
Risk of a Fine: Assessment
Yes, the various States’ laws are enacted to provide legal grounds for ‘forcing a vaccination or test’, such as the $10,000 dollar fine, but even the ABC News article, referring to the case of a fine for non-compliance, states by a Government-appointed and commissioned doctor:
“I think the Government is reluctant to have to do this because you’ve got to get hearts and minds onside if you’ve got a pandemic,” he said. “The Government has got to take the community with them. We don’t want to do it if it’s not necessary”.
Well: “if it’s not necessary”, “has feathers on it”!
The question of a Government’s right to fine people for refusing a virus-infection-test would have to be based upon our rights as written in our Constitution, which I claim, would support anyone’s refusal to be tested.
First, the Australian Immunisation Handbook, under Vaccination Procedures and Preparing for a Vaccination, with the section on Valid Consent and Criteria for Valid Consent, states four criteria that must be present for a person to give their consent for a proposed procedure. Any candidate for vaccination can insist upon these.
With the Australian Immunisation Handbook’s most recently updated text at the time of this post, it states that “For consent to be legally valid … 2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.
Both vaccinations and virus-infection-testing are medical procedures that are practised in order to generally, protect the public from diseases.
Therefore a vaccination and the right we’re given to not give our consent for vaccination as expressed in the Handbook is equal to our right to not give our consent for a virus-infection-test because the logic of law proposes that these are both measures to protect the public, where testing proceeds vaccination.
The imposition of a fine for refusing a virus-infection-test must surely, therefore, constitute “undue pressure, coercion and manipulation” as the Handbook states, as this valid reason for not giving consent.
Like: “You’re going to fine me for not giving my consent for a medical procedure, whereas the nature of a fine is coercion and pressure to do the thing that’s penalised by the fine”.
The underlying reason for these laws is assumed to be the protection of the population against disease. But when there are alternative treatments that have proven effective against a known pathogen (disease-causing organism), then that argument for imposing compliance for a medical procedure must not apply, because the imposed method is not exclusive of others and therefore doesn’t warrant imposition.
Therefore, this being a Federal Handbook, any State legislation that requires forced or fine-imposed, and non-consent testing or vaccination is overridden by our Australian Constitution because the Australian Immunisation Handbook is Commonwealth Law and our Constitution states:
109. Inconsistency of laws
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
Well, the extent of the inconsistency is that fines are coercion but coercion is outlawed by the Immunisation Handbook. Therefore non-consent is lawful by our Constitution’s and Commonwealth Government’s laws.
So much destruction has been perpetrated lately! But God…