Email to the Queensland Human Rights Commission (25.08.2022)

ATTN: The Commissioner of the Queeensland Human Rights Commission

I am a philosopher of ethics and the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. I recently published on this topic in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics (cited below).

This communication is motivated by the Dept. of Education announcing that unvaccinated QLD teachers will be penalised for their non-consent to this medical procedure.

I submit that vaccine mandates, or any systemic discrimination against the unvaccinated, infringes on human rights, including the right to life. This conclusion is based on the following grounds:

1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that our innate human constitution is no longer a guarantee of full human rights. This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240.

2. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of free medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right (including the right to life) can be subverted by medical coercion. Free medical consent is the most fundamental protection against crimes against humanity being committed under the guise of healthcare (several instances of such abuses have occurred in this century).

3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated amounts to a violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of otherwise healthy people are expected to die as a direct result of that procedure.

An earlier version of these arguments were formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT and subsequently published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/26/medethics-2022-108229.responses#fundamental-values-are-not-defeated-by-utilitarian-calculus

I suggest that we are facing a human rights emergency and the outlined issues call for immediate administrative action, especially in regard to the actions of the Dept. of Education.

I am open to collaboration.

Sincerely,

Michael Kowalik
https://philpeople.org/profiles/michael-kowalik

Iain Benson, professor of ethics and law, argues that vaccine coercion was wrong because: a) it violated medical privacy, b) the vaccine was experimental. Professor Benson thus implies, by omission, that medical coercion would be ethical if the vaccine were fully approved and privacy were not breached. This is an intellectually evasive and ethically wrong position, a wholesale denial of human rights. If our healthy innate constitution (being born human) is not a guarantee of full human rights, then there are no human rights, only privileges. Let them know that you know. https://rumble.com/v1gva6r-covid-inquiry-2.0-22-iain-benson.html

Those who believe that human rights (including the right to equality before the law and the right to life) can be removed subject to law, when deemed necessary, implicitly agree that all past crimes against humanity would not be crimes at all if they were democratically mandated and deemed necessary.

If those who act in your name do not believe in the unconditional right to free medical consent (with no exceptions for martial law, public health emergencies or government approved injections) then you should ask yourself whether they really serve your children’s interests. Ask them.

In June, we wrote to the Australian Human Rights Commission asserting their statutory functions with respect to Covid-19, and asking them to please perform their duty for the sake of upholding the human rights protections of Australians (https://lnkd.in/dgwktP_m)

We did receive a response, in which Ms Lorraine Finlay, the human rights Commissioner, agreed that the issues in our letter are a priority for her and the Commission.

It was encouraging to see the Commissioner’s article in the Australian recently (https://lnkd.in/g6FtQdKz), as well as her submission to the ‘Independent Review of Australia’s Covid Policy Response’(https://lnkd.in/gAfT5wnV), which I noted reflects some of the issues in our letter.

Ms Finlay’s final paragraph read as follows:

"...Australians have had to live with some of the most restrictive response measures in the world and the impact on individual human rights has been substantial. Even in the middle of an emergency, human rights matter. It is essential that Australia’s pandemic response is fully and formally reviewed in terms of its impact on human rights, and that future emergency planning incorporates human rights considerations as a priority".

I, of course, completely agree with the Commissioner. A full and formal review is essential. Thankfully, as explained in our letter, it is the very statutory function of the AHRC to conduct such a review. The AHRC Act at Section 11 allows (and obligates) the AHRC to “inquire [ie; to hold an inquiry] into any act or practice that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right”, including the rights they agree were breached throughout the past few years.

If the AHRC did so, it would not only provide some sense of reparation to those whose lives have been torn apart, but it would meaningfully change the course of Australian history by ensuring that the rights protected under the ICCPR and other treaties and covenants are not so carelessly tossed away in future.

If those rights are to mean anything at all, they must be defended. The Commissioner is the only person in Australia with the statutory power (and function) of so defending them.

I have written to the Commissioner accordingly, noting that I stand with many others who would be willing to assist her or the Commission with an inquiry in whichever way we can.

The percentage of true information in the alternative media is no greater that in the mainstream media. The alternative media may correctly identify some untrue claim in the reports of the mainstream media but then extrapolate this element of truth towards unverifiable, speculative or ideologically motivated conclusions. Another way, mainstream and alternative media examine the same event, respectively, from the positions of the offical narrative and the counter-narrative, and both sides embellish the truth with ample untruths geared to the biases and anxieties of their audience.

A refresher course on the illegality of the governance by decree under emergency powers: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/emergency-powers-and-the-who-pandemic

Those who endorse mandatory vaccination are no longer ennoscriptd to transplants of natural human organs. They chose trashumanism, augmented humanity, Homo sapiens 2.0, so their only ethical option is to ask WEF for artificial organs. They don’t get to use healthy, natural humans for body parts after vilifying us for being inherently defective and unhealthy. They have placed their bet, and now will face the evolutionary consequences of their choice. On the other hand, can I interest you in a fresh pig liver?

EXAMPLE of how delegation of legislative authority could be abused. A party with a parliamentary majority wants to do something grossly unethical, something that could not be openly debated in Parliament, aiming perhaps to covertly eliminate the minority opposition or some racial demographic, so it grants a delegation of vaguely defined emergency powers to manage a flu pandemic to the health minister, whom the said party controls. Once the bad deed is done, perhaps under the guise of a mandated medical intervention, the health minister is to be used as a scapegoat, denounced and publicly rejected by the party as incompetent, perhaps even prosecuted, and thus the reputation of the controlling party would not be tarnished, plausible deniability preserved, and the criminal objective covertly accomplished.

Banning coal is essentially a policy of mass murder. In eastern and northern Europe you die without winter heating. Banning petrol and diesel cars would in turn amount to prohibiting private transport for 90+% of people. Anthropogenic climate change, as defined by IPCC, is a proven fraud (https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/394), an excuse for democide by deprivation. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-where-coal-is-king-homeowners-queue-days-buy-fuel-2022-08-27/

Does the Parliament possess the authority, unconstrained by the procedural requirements applicable to Parliament, to make laws by indirect means: via a person legislating under delegated powers? Construed in this way, the act of delegation would be a law “respecting the constitution, powers or procedure of the Parliament” (as per s6 of the Australia Act 1986) for impliedly repealing the procedural requirements binding the Parliament: “the manner and form (…) required by a law [ordinarily] made by that Parliament”. Delegated legislative powers are exercised without parliamentary debate or the majority vote of the Legislature and have included the kind of interventions that override fundamental rights. Does s6 of the Australia Act ‘therefore’ invalidate the delegation of Emergency Powers under s200 of Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 VIC, or any legislation of equivalent effect, if the delegate remains under informal control of the Parliament; or is the delegation invalid because it amounts to renunciation of the Legislature’s power to legislate, if the delegate is not fully under Parliament’s control? (According to JEFFREY D. GOLDSWORTHY, in MANNER AND FORM IN THE AUSTRALIAN STATES, “the retention by Parliament only of a power of veto is not consistent with the requirement that the legislature retain full constituent power.”)
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_act/aa1986114/s6.html

‘Meaning’ is the meaning of life.

In October 2021, the Victorian parliament has passed a motion to prohibit unvaccinated MPs from attending the parliament, thereby imposing a new condition on exercising the legislative authority on members the Assembly. This may have been contrary to s34 of the Constituion Act 1975, according to which only one condition must be satisfied to exercise the legislative authority as a member of the Assembly: “The Assembly shall consist of members who shall be representatives of and be elected by the electors of the respective districts.” Conditional exclusion from exercising the legislative authority in the Assembly is logically equivalent to being conditionally excluded from the Assembly. If the motion had indeed the effect of conditionally reconstituting the Assembly and thus implicitly modifying s34, then, in light of s18(1B), for the relevant change to be lawful it would require not just a majority vote of both houses but a referendum. S18(3): “Any Bill dealing with any of the matters specified in subsection (1B) which has not been approved in accordance with that subsection is void.” If a Bill would be void on this basis then, by implication, any parliamentary motion with the same effect would also be void. (The same argument can be constructed in relation to the effect of the rule on the Legislative Council)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-15/unvaccinated-victorian-mps-barred-from-entering-parliament/100541136

Validity of vaccine mandates is exclusively an ethical issue, not a medical issue, not a scientific issue; the mandates would be just as unacceptable even if the vaccines were fully approved and fully prevented transmission. Scientific arguments against the mandates imply, falsely, that medical mandates would be acceptable under some empirical conditions. Any scientific argument disputing the efficacy and safety of vaccines must not make the claim that the mandates are ‘therefore’ unacceptable (this would be an equivocation between utility and ethics, ultimately serving the utilitarian agenda). Https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical

Anthropogenic Global Warming. From the Deception about Consensus to Total Refutation.

The claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that human emissions are the primary cause of global warming derives from the work of John Cook 2013, linked below. Cook calculated this number by excluding 66% of climate scientists who did not state their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). For the remaining 34%, he considered 3 criteria: a) explicit endorsement that humans are the primary cause of climate change in recent times, b) unqualified endorsement of AGW, meaning that humans contribute something/anything to warming but are not necessarily the primary cause of climate change c) implicit endorsement of some human contribution to climate change. He then lumps all these criteria together and claims that 97% of the 34% agree on AGW theory. He fails to clarity in the conclusions that AGW in that context means even very slight contribution to warming; not that 97% agree that humans are the Primary driver of the recent warming. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

The real problem with Cooks work is revealed only in his second study, in which Cook performs a sleight of hand and substitutes his earlier, weak definition of AGW consensus, that humans contribute anything to global warming but are not necessarily the dominant cause, with the strongest IPCC definition: “Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century'”. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

From this point onwards IPCC has adopted Cooks “evidence” in support of their different definition, and so the fallacy of 97% consensus on IPCC position was born. All this is apart from the fact that consensus about beliefs is not evidence of facts about the objective reality.

Since Humlum 2013 we know beyond any doubt that human emissions of CO2 are not the primary driver of global temperature. Humlum et al. have shown, by analysing the official climate data-sets, that the rate of change of global temperature shows zero sensitivity to the rate of change of CO2 concentration, which precludes the possibility of CO2 driving the global temperature.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Humlum’s study has attracted aggressive criticism for his largely speculative, alternative explanation of climate change, but nobody has even attempted to refute his primary conclusion, that the rate of global warming does not increase in response to an increased rate of CO2 emissions, which is a necessary feature of (strong) anthropogenic climate change as defined by IPCC.

Not one controlled study on masks ever conducted has shown a statistically significant benefit of masks in preventing transmission of respiratory viruses in the general population. The current study looks at mask mandates in schools and the conclusions are the same, again. Mask advice is medical disinformation, anti-science. https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2022/08/23/archdischild-2022-324172

If God created Man then the A.I. designers are certainly trying to return the compliment. An A.I. driven supercomputer is their new vision of god, and, according to WEF prophecy, everything “planted outside of [this] god will wither and die” (meaning, everyone who does not pledge allegiance to this new god), except the new version of Lucifer of course, the rebel mind of free humanity.