Who owns the land.

The public land of the Australian continent is owned not by the government but by the people, by you, by all citizens collectively, including the Aboriginal people. This kind of ownership is called national sovereignty, collective sovereignty, the commonwealth, which also includes the Aboriginal people. The idea that the Aboriginal people can take away the land from the government is legal nonsense; it only means that they want to take away Your sovereignty, and Your land, all for themselves, and in addition to having effectively lost your self-ownership you will also be required to pay a race-tax or rent to live on your own property, or worse. The stupidity of this idea being presented as a solution to the Great Reset is astounding. It is the Great Reset!

This is the power of brainwashing. The IQ clearly does not matter, it seems to be a function of a susceptible (suggestible) personality. In for a penny, in for a pound. Quite sad actually. https://www.newswars.com/cardiologist-who-vowed-not-to-cry-for-unvaccinated-deaths-dies-in-sleep-2-weeks-after-3rd-jab/

My recent email to Melina Bath MP:

Dear Melina,

I have introduced the following E-Petition to the Legislative Council, contesting the constitutional validity of Emergency Powers in Victoria. In essence, the delegation of emergency powers by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself. The same legal/logical objection applies to the proposed pandemic laws that you are opposing. Would you be willing to sponsor my petition in addition to yours?

Grievance:
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that the Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. The delegation of emergency powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s discretion should not be allowed.

Action:
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to remove all current COVID-19 emergency directives and restrictions and repeal all legislation that grants the Government emergency powers.

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

I have also made a submission to SARC, arguing on the above grounds that the pandemic Bill inappropriately delegates legislative power and is therefore Ultra Vires and void. FYI:

Public Submission to The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.

I am referring to the proposed PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT (PANDEMIC MANAGEMENT) BILL 2021 (henceforth, ‘The Bill’).

Dear members of the Committee,

I ask you to consider the following logical proof that The Bill inappropriately delegates legislative power.

Summary:

The Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. Therefore, delegation of powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s or Minister’s discretion is Ultra Vires.

In essence, the delegation of discretionary powers to infringe on citizen freedoms by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself.

Analysis:

The principle of Ultra Vires was succinctly formulated by Justice Griffith in Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth, HCA 50 (26 April 1904): “... if the authority which assumes to create such a delegation does not itself possess the power, the delegation is void, since the spring cannot rise higher than its source.”

The legislative power in the State of Victoria is vested solely in the Parliament (s16, Constitution Act 1975), where the "Parliament" includes each House of the Parliament, the members of each House, the committees of each House and joint committees of both Houses (s94B.7). The only means of making legally binding restrictions on freedoms under the constitution is therefore by the majority vote of the Parliament.

The proposed Pandemic Management powers are essential a delegation of the constitutional authority to make legally binding restrictions on freedoms. If the delegation were not an extension of the legislative authority of the Parliment it would not have the force of law. Pandemic Management powers, once assumed, are exercised by the decree of the Minister.

The constitutional objection is that the Parliament does not have the authority to dispense with or bypass any element of the legislative process set in the Constitution (including the majority vote by both houses). The Parliament cannot delegate powers it does not itself possess, since a non-existent authority cannot be delegated; to affirm otherwise would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction, therefore a priori false.

More formally, if X is a specific Parlimentary authority that is identical to the delegated authority X, then X=X, but if the the original authority does not exist, then not-X=X, therefore contradiction. Or simply, I cannot give you something that does not exist.

Any Act of Parliament that would purport to delegate powers that exceed the procedural limits of the Parliament itself is therefore Ultra Vires and Void.

Response from Melina Bath MP:

Melina Bath MP has responded today. She suggests that I should sign her petition (https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/415) and did not accept my request for her to also sponsor my petition (https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374).

I have responded as follows:

Dear Melina,

Thank you for responding.

I cannot sign your petition (Nr. 402) because it implies (or can be convincingly construed to imply) that the proposed amendments would be lawful if passed. The argument I have presented to you in my previous email refutes this premise. I could sign your petition subject to one change in the wording:

I suggest substituting the current sentence “The Bill hands enormous power to the Premier of Victoria” with “The Bill purports to delegate enormous power to the Premier of Victoria, which is nevertheless beyond the powers of the Parliament to delegate.”

This is the crux of the matter, and unless addressed explicitly will always leave the door open to tyranny.

My opinion on vaccines.

Vaccines are irreversible, biotechnological enhancements intended for healthy people that could never occur naturally (more on this below) and therefore not healthcare (or healthy) but transhumanism. Transhumanism is in principle unhealthy, because it aims to alter the species-typical characterises on which the medical standard of human health is based. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/30/is-transhumanism-a-health-problem/

Apart from the above, a typical vaccine consists of the target antigen/protein and an adjuvant (intended to activate the immune system to the target antigen), plus some non-target antigens - proteins retained as impurities from the manufacturing process. Any injection through the skin stimulates at least two distinct immune responses: IgE (anti-partistic) and IgG (antibodies that fight the target pathogen). IgE sensitisation can be induced by trace amounts of the antigen and typically lasts for life; IgG is relatively short lived and is induced only by higher doses of the antigen. IgE never occurs naturally to respiratory viruses, because it is an anti-parasitic, allergic immune response evolved for insect bites (injections are like insect bites). In the case of natural infection with a respiratory antigen you typically develop IgG antibodies plus T-cells (which extend the capacity to generate IgG). After receiving a vaccine that includes the same antigen, you get IgE + IgG; that is, allergic sensitisation to the viral protein (and to any other protein in the vaccine) plus some short lived IgG immunity that has to counter both the allergy and the virus itself, at the same time. These two contradictory reactions ensure that vaccines can never achieve as good immunity as a natural infection, and may also induce allergic sensitivity to any non-target antigens, including the possibility of auto-immunity. Injectable vaccines are inherently dangerous; bad medicine.

This paper includes a reasonably comprehensive bibliography on IgE sensitisation: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-foodallergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-2329-6631-1000137.pdf

If the government is taking away the fundamental freedoms that make life meaningful, that make personhood possible, then we are already at war - a war against humanity. A mass murder has already been perpetrated, is ongoing, claiming more victims every day. The government is not the sole perpetrator of this crime; the news networks, the corporations who implement the criminal mandates, and the employees who enforce those mandates on others, are all complicit. Having “kids to feed” or “a mortgage to pay off” are not valid excuses for participating in a crime against humanity.

Tens of millions of people are suddenly unvaccinated. With the push of a button they are suddenly untermenschen again. How fokking funny is that :)

The crimeminister has just announced that “we will have to adjust our concept of what constitutes fully vaccinated”. You will need three now! You were warned over and over. So if you are only double jabbed, you are not jabbed any more!!! Waking up yet??

Subscribe for updates: t.me/greatreject

The idea that writing letters in terms of MY WILL has special authority was never true, and could never be true. The job of the parliamentarian is to represent the people, and this implies doing what is Morally Right on their behalf. This is the only objective source of ALL authority. If 90% of the people demanded their representative do something that is morally wrong, that representative would still be morally obligated to oppose their demand, because doing what is morally wrong would not be in the objective interest of those people (even if they don’t understand the implications). The phrase MY WILL is at best superfluous (a person who makes a morally right choice is, by necessity, acting in the best interest of the people and expresses their true will), otherwise it is false; a person who demands a moral wrong is unwittingly opposing the objective interest of the people and their own true will, they are simply irrational, their demands are self-negating and should be ignored. So in principle, every politician on the planet ought to serve the objective interest of all of humanity by doing only what is morally right, even if they nominally represent only a small group.

Anti-Colonialism

Anti-colonialism is based on the premise that Tribe A has committed a moral wrong against Tribe B, but both colonialism and anti-colonialism are equally motivated by the tribal mindset, and only take opposite sides in a conflict of tribal interests. Both sides fail to see that tribalism itself is the problem, that it is self-defeating and morally wrong, irrespective of which side one would take, because it implicitly degrades one’s own rational agency by devaluing the rational agency in another. The rational position is to abandon tribalism and stand as a human, as an individuation of rational consciousness, open to deliberating rationally with any other rational being. Our common interest lies in the rational agency itself, which is the source of all value. We can be conscious selves only by means of perceiving the other as a being of the same conscious, rational kind, and by sabotaging our conscious kind in its manifestation as the other we become less conscious, less real ourselves. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3737433