Newbie Protesters who believed that it was now legal to protest the harsh Victorian lockdown and Dan Andrews’ government of lies, found themselves encircled by VicPol, blocked in a three way intersection.
The police deliberately kettled people and pushed them together so they could not socially distance. And then they arrested them for not socially distancing. It was a set-up, pure and simple. If they had just allowed it to go ahead as planned, people would have spread out.
Instead, protesters were tackled, thrown to the ground, peppersprayed, arrested and processed, with around 4oo fines handed out.
If protest is really so dangerous, then why was the BLM rally not a superspreader? Or maybe it was? You can’t have it both ways.
What has become obvious, is that Chairman Dan is more than happy to send his private army to destroy dissenters.
Unfortunately some blame must fall on the organizers of this event who chose a problematic location and failed to keep people safe. Updates to “not let yourself be encircled ” and move “north” were sent, but were too vague to get their message across to people who believed that socially distanced protesting was legal.
From an anonymous barrister, reblogged from Social Media (corrected and edited by Grumpycat333) :
“Know this: Lockdown Orders have zero legal standing. Why did Daniel Andrews desperately want the Omibus detention powers? He had the existing fines mechanism to enforce Directions orders which are the basis of the lockdown. So why the need for new powers? This answer is because people are waking up.
Everyone should go and read page 106 of The Public Health and Wellbeing Act Division 1 Section 111. It states: the spread of an infectious disease should be prevented or minimised with the MINIMUM RESTRICTIONS on the RIGHTS of any person.
The legal drafting and clause construction is very clear. It says; the Chief Health Officer can do his job to stop the spread of an infectious disease, BUT a person’s rights restrictions must be minimal. He has a qualifier and restraint. He doesn’t decide what’s minimum. So who does decide what’s minimum?
If a person, whose rights are being restricted has no say in the matter, there would have been no need to include the clause in the legislation. The Parliament sought to preserve and protect civil liberties. It’s a check on unfettered powers. That is the purpose of the clause, otherwise, why have it in the legislation, if the Chief Health Officer has unrestrained powers? It’s a reminder of the constraint on the Chief Health Officer.
The Westminster system constrains, separates, checks and contains power, through a mechanism known as the Separation of Powers. This means that legislature (who makes laws), the Executive (Premier and Ministry) who execute law, and the Judiciary who interpret laws, remain separate. This is a check on power so it’s not concentrated as we seem to have in Victoria at the present.
The default ‘Mentis’ (mind) of Parliament, in a liberal democracy, is to preserve freedoms. Particularly the freedom of movement and association, which the High Court has protected over and over and now Daniel Andrews thinks he can extinguish. The person who decides what’s a minimum restraint on a person’s rights is the person who has the rights.
If that person has no say on what’s a restraint, the person would be deemed to have no rights, so why mention them? In this event, the person at best, has privileges which can be limited or extinguished. Like a driving license. True rights can only be suspended or limited by the right’s holder. These are known as inalienable rights. God given, which cannot be extinguished by the State, the Chief Health Officer or Daniel Andrews. Division 1 Section 111 was drafted in acknowledgement of this liberal democratic principle. The Section is even referred to as the Principle of the Act, against which all Directions Orders must be measured. Case closed.
What I have just set out is legal argument that a Barrister might make before a Magistrate, who is usually ill equipped to handle such arguments. Now you understand why the last thing Daniel Andrews wants is fines to be challenged in Court. Push the problem into the future or maybe even forgive fines so they never see a court room . Victorians don’t know or understand the law and Andrews feels omnipotent whilst most Victorians are oblivious and kept in the dark.
The average police officer in the street is even less well equipped to handle these matters, so don’t try to enlighten them or argue whilst being issued with an illegal and worthless fine. They have no idea. They’re just following orders. In any event, fines are only allegations and not findings of fact or guilt. Fines become an admission of guilt when you pay them. That’s why the fines can be challenged.
Daniel Andrews’ decrees from the podium have zero standing and will never stand up in court when the BS fines are challenged. They’re all a big bluff. The lockdown is a bluff. It’s no wonder the Magistrates Court has adjourned all Covid challenged fines well into 2021. If one illegal fine gets before a court, Andrews will buckle like he did with the curfew when it was uncovered as a fraud. The Directions Order will be found to be as illegal as the curfew. The day before the curfew was challenged in the Supreme Court, is was quickly ended by Andrews. The 5km restraint is equally illegal as an excessive restraint on the rights of Victorians. I remind you. If Victorians have no rights, as Andrews asserts, then why mention them in the Act?
While Andrews can’t be removed as Premier, he is subject to the Westminster system of Separation of Powers, which means the Parliament or Courts can clip his wings and stop his tyranny. As he has the numbers in Parliament it’s useless to try a no confidence motion against Andrews, so we’re left with the Judiciary and the Courts.
Being awake and informed will set you free. With the legal illusion of fines swept away, so is lockdown. We decide when the lockdown ends, not Daniel Andrews. The police will run out of ink in the their pens writing fines if we don’t co-operate. It was for this reason Daniel Andrews wanted detention powers in his Omnibus Bill. He feared someone would write a post like this, and wake up Victoria. “
Shared from Telegram, author unknown:
“Well, Mr Andrews once again lives up to his reputation of being a living, breathing screw up. This time though, he’s getting his arse kicked, and reports are suggesting that he’s filtering through his cabinet to find a replacement well before the next election and perhaps even before the end of the year, if not sooner. Why?? .. Well, it seems despite Dan’s super doopa computer and his modelling, and despite repeated assertions that their contract tracing is working and working well, in an interview with Neil Mitchell, Brett Sutton, who it seems is even dumber than his boss, advised that Victoria still does not have a fully automatic contact tracing system. All the other states do.
NSW has mastered the contact tracing system and every person tested is advised of the result within 24 hours of being tested and, (this is where we do out ‘high fives’) guess what! The same system that NSW is using and has allowed them to be right on top of tracing was offered to Dan by Scott, back in March. But Dan rejecting it … It gets better. Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist, and apparently adviser to all states regarding this virus, and the man behind the contact tracing system being used, at Morrison’s request, made efforts to consult Brett Sutton, in MARCH, to sit down and go over the contract tracing system and work through the report that explains it, but Brett never showed up. Brett told Mitchell, that he hasn’t even read Finkel’s report. They have just ignored the best contact tracing system in the world.
Guess where Brett is right now? At Morrison’s ORDERS, he is in NSW talking to them about how contract tracing actually should be implemented. Apparently, Scott tore Andrews to shreds earlier today and demanded an outline of his plan forward, not the computer modelling. When pressed by Mitchell about how Victoria does the contract tracing, Brett said they use spreadsheets and faxes , the old fashioned way… Every day, Dan, in parrot fashion squawks how he uses the best health advice, how Victoria has a great contact tracing system, yet, it appears, they have not consulted any other scientist/expert/consultant other than scientists in his own cabinet.
Finkel, who has made many requests to meet with Brett and Dan, and has sat with every other leader in the country and has advised other countries in regards to contact tracing, has never had his requests accepted. And for the big one. CURFEW … Brett advised Mr Mitchell, that the curfew was never made on scientific advise. There is no scientific substance to the imposition of the curfew we are under. It was done on Brett’s advice simply because it was a good way of ‘containing Victorians’ …
Tomorrow’s news will be interesting, because it seems, the shit’s about to hit a very big fan, DAN …
and his teddy bear Brettie won’t be able to comfort him because he will be in NSW listening to their experts on how to do contact tracing properly … Screw up Dan, living up to his reputation. We might be having a Christmas after all.”
OK, here’s the deal: Victoria is signed up to the charter of human rights and therefore things like moving freely and protesting ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Neither the BLM protest nor the anti lockdown protests were illegal. All the fines are getting thrown out at the review stage because the government does not want them to go to court as they would be dismissed there too.
The government knows this and therefore let the BLM protest slide, as they agreed with the woke agenda. The anti-lockdown protests are much more dangerous to the government , therefore they are fighting them so hard, but the fines are null and void.
This is why the police are cracking down so hard on ordinary dissenters : it’s theatre to scare people off. But the veil of deceit is thin and more and more people are now beginning to see through it.
Basically it’s all a bluff and a charade, so I suggest that people take those health measures they are comfortable with and ignore the rest.
In many European countries the virus is spreading among the young while older more vulnerable people are being careful. Needless to say the death rate has plummeted there. No major lockdowns are in place. You can leave it up to the people, they are not stupid.
What is happening in Victoria right now is growing civil unrest against what amounts to an illegal dictatorship. It appears that this unrest is not just driven by everyday unemployed and isolated people, and not even a minority of conspiracy theorists, but also business owners, leaders and even the federal government.
It will certainly get very interesting in the coming weeks, but I suspect that it will be over sooner than we think.
The ABS consistently forecast wage growth, blissfully unaware of the effects of illegal immigration driving down wages an conditions. A more cynical mind might assume they were promising paradise while mixing the cyanide into the cool aid. Not sure where this chart was from, but its based on ABS data.
So what happened after 2007 you might ask…
Immigration jumped to more than double, almost triple the previous 30 years average rate.OF course this was coupled with illegal work permits and other rorting of the Australian taxpayer.
20% of the workforce are migrant guest workers
10% of the work force are migrant guest workers are in breach of their visa.
The following comment (with minor spelling corrections) was taken from:
19 Jan 2019
End of comment
Worst of all this problem has been well publicized and nothing has been done, because government officials are complicit in the scam. All of this feed corporate profits by reducing wages and driving up bank profits by creating demand for housing.
Another good artile about this and with specific reference to the IT 457 visa rorting:
No covid related fines have been allowed to go to court, most (all) were thrown out at the review stage. Why? Because they contradict the charter of human rights in Victoria, which has not been suspended. The government does not want the fines to go to court, because there it might be proven that it acted in an unreasonable, disproportionate and unnecessary manner. The fines are nothing but a bluff to scare children.