A post concerning mandatory vaccinations becoming law in Australia.
This is the way our Australian democracy works – A committee is advised what the government wants and then hold an inquiry that confirms and upholds the desired end result.
Evidence of serious issues are ignored:
NO consideration of the health status of the recipients.
NO consideration for the basic rights of parents.
No consideration for the rights of the child.
NO consideration for the absence of proven safety of individual vaccines and especially that of multiple applications.
NO consideration for establishing the need for particular vaccines in different situations.
NO regard for information provided in the public submissions which were, in the committee’s own words “The majority of the correspondence received was from individuals who oppose the bill.”
So far removed from logic, science and commonsense that it points to a hidden agenda being enacted.
“Democrazy” is a more appropriate interpretation.
Not only a mockery of justice, but an insult to Australians.
How does this sound? “As part of this measure, the Government announced it would provide a $26 million boost to the Immunise Australia program ‘to encourage doctors and immunisation providers to identify and vaccinate children in their practice who are overdue’.”
I am interested to see how spending on enforced vaccinations can be offset by “1.21 The Explanatory Memorandum notes that the Bill is expected to produce savings of $508.3 million over the forward estimates.” If this is calculated to be savings from healthier children and less work sickies, perhaps they have forgotten the health costs of dealing with adverse reaction issues which may even exceed any known-to-be-fallible and non-guaranteed benefits of vaccinating.
The committee judgment does not go unchallenged, even by its peers! “ 1.22 The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) found the Bill engages and places limits on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as set out in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and sought advice from the Minister on whether the measures were justifiable. The PJCHR had not published the Minister’s response prior to the tabling of this report.”
Conduct of the inquiry
1.2 Details of the inquiry, including a link to the Bill and associated documents, were placed on the committee’s website. The committee also wrote to 31 organisations and individuals, inviting submissions by 16 October 2015.
1.3 The committee received over 2000 pieces of correspondence related to the inquiry, which included submissions, form letters and short general statements. The majority of the correspondence received was from individuals who oppose the bill.
1.4 On 28 October 2015 the committee determined to publish the following statement on the inquiry page:
The committee has received a large volume of submissions in relation to this inquiry and wishes to assure submitters that each piece of correspondence to the inquiry is being read and considered. The committee has decided to publish all submissions from organisations and a representative sample of the submissions received from individuals. Owing to the sensitive and personal nature of many submissions, the committee has decided that the representative sample will be drawn from those for which it has received clear advice from the submitter supporting publication. The committee has decided not to publish submissions comprising short or general statements, form/campaign letters and petitions, but has noted the concerns raised in them.
1.5 The committee published 550 submissions, including 25 submissions received from organisations. The committee also published two samples of form letters. The committee considered and noted all other unpublished correspondence.
1.6 The committee held a public hearing in Brisbane on 2 November 2015.