Pages and pages written with dozens of quotes/references to the UDHR. But why? The UDHR is not the law in Australia. It is just a declaration. Well anyone can make a declaration- you could it, I could do it, kermit the frog could do it: for example, I could declare that I'm the greatest authority there is and I and I alone can decide what people can and can't do and that I'm the final arbiter of truth. But that would just be a worthless declaration because it is not the law and has no backing by the government and will not be enforced by it. It's the same with the UDHR- it is just a feel good declaration and but not the law in Australia. The only Australian laws that exist and that the government should be concerned about and that it can enforce in Australia are those that:
1) Exist because of our UK heritage from which we've inherited their legal system, legal traditions and laws. And it will only still exist if it has not been repealed/modified by an Act of an Australian parliament.
2) Have been created directly by an act of parliament in Australia or indirectly by an authority that's been granted by an act of parliament the power to make laws/regulations (eg: local governments have been granted the power to make bylaws by the state governments)

Anything the the UDHR states, or for that matter any other document/statement that some foreign entity (such as the UN) creates/says is NOT Australian law by right of its mere existence. So quoting/referring to it in an article to try and convince the reader that the government is actually illegally according to OUR laws is pointless. If the author really wants to convince us that Australia is acting illegally then she should give direct references to acts of parliament (she did this only twice that I counted out of the plethora of references/links she provided).

Steeleredux

Oh so you have finally figured out the difference between giving a reason and posting a link. Well done! Now you're only four steps behind me.

You do know, don't you, that the PCR tests have given positive results for a pawpaw, a goat, dog urine, a pheasant, a kiwifruit, and a glass of Coca-Cola? Look it up. Use your brain. Do your own research.

I saw a video by a PhD in immunology and virology who had been a professional lab scientists for 25 years. He was sent 1500 samples of biological material that had tested positive to Covid19 by PCR tests . He did a full lab test on all of them, and found EVERY SINGLE ONE was a false positive.

So given the tests can't distinguish between the above-mentioned species and compounds, and Covid19, what makes you think they can distinguish between influenza A and B, which are species of coronavirus, and *the* coronavirus?

That's not a rhetorical question. Answer it.

Then prove what was the "dominant circulating respiratory virus" in your cited source.

Show how you have accounted for:
1. the use of PCR tests in the figures you cite
2. the classification of deaths *with* covid19 as deaths *by* Covid19, e.g. co-morbidities.
3. give an account of any conflict of interest, including government paying hospitals more for covid diagnoses and death certificates, and directions or pressure on medical staff to count deaths as covid.

Go ahead.

Show your workings.

Your failure to reply, or making any other reply whatsoever including ad hominem, constitutes your irrevocable agreement that you are dishonestly trying to slime out of humiliating defeat, and that your flaccid docility has COMPLETELY FAILED to join issue and to establish any covid pandemic whatsoever. Okay? Got that? Now answer.

Andras

You are displaying confusion and brainwashing, which I prove as follows.

If you're saying that covid policy is NOT justified, then there is no issue between us, and you are displaying confusion by arguing about it.

If you're saying that covid policy IS justified, then you have the burden of proof, not me. Only *after* you have given reason - NOT circularities or assumptions - based on evidence, does any question arise of me having to prove anything.

So you're displaying confusion, and showing that you don't understand the requirements of logical thought, let alone the issues of policy or science.

And you're displaying brainwashing by your approach, namely
1. assume all conclusions in your own favour without articulating this assumption or giving any reason, and then
2. meeting any question with more question-begging, backed up by personal argument.
(*My* personal argument is only in response to yours, and disproves you by your own standard.
*Your* personal argument is the necessary foundation for your entire argument which evaporates without it; else you'd put forward a non-fallacious argument.)

You need to understand that other people aren't as brainwashed as you, don't stupidly think that government is a god because that belief is not reality-based, and rightly understand that you should be ashamed of your blind obedient evil in re-running the Nuremberg defence arguments.

So, anyway, go ahead a prove your justification of covid policy. Note that any ASSUMPTION that it's justified, or any other reply or personal argument whatsoever, means we both agree that you are a brainwashed fascist totalitarian Nazi who agrees that you can't give a rational defence of your cult superstition.

Okay? Got that? *Now* do you understand?

Go ahead. Start with the proofs I have set SteeleRedux, who, like you, has NO HOPE of proving what he is asserting, or rather assuming.

You're just making a display of your ovine docility - backed up with thinking the Nazis were clever and progressive. BAAAAAAAAA!

thinkabit

Yes, all valid.

However beware of proving too much.

It is common knowledge that the Nazi defence at Nuremberg was "just following orders", which was rejected.

What is not so commonly known, is that that defence was just a subsidiary and secondary leg of the main defence which was that law and rights are whatever the state says they are.

According to this theory, so long as the state has followed whatever formalities it has set itself, in order to enact a positive law, then there's nothing that the government can't legitimately do, and nothing so wrong that it can't constitute it a "right". If, let's say, it says there's a "right" to arbitrary killings, then it is a right in the proper sense of the word. Not only that, we can legitimately presume it is self-evidently for the public good, because the state did it, especially if it's a democratic state.

And that's what you're saying, right?

So. Freeze frame. Sheep test.

What is wrong with this picture?

Cumberland,

Do you think you could explain, with evidence, the link between Covid-19 and the 5G network some time soon? It seems your forum "friend" and fellow constitutional lawyer "Fascist Andrea" thinks there is. She was kicked off the LIBERAL ticket at the last WA election for having that opinion, not that it mattered Mark McGowan and LABOR had a landside victory.

Paul1405s

No, I don't know. And I don't know whom you refer to.

But I have seen a couple of videos in which a little magnet adhered to the site of the vaccination. Can you explain what kind of vaccine would do that?