Defined by dishonesty.
Gladys is now GILLARD.
Unemployable.
A future of travelling the country doing women’s seminars.
Obfuscation and an inability to answer a question honestly, riddled with can’t recalls.
Who in their right mind would want to hire her in the real world?
Her legacy is For Lease signs everywhere and a litany of lies.
Well done Hawthorn RSL.
DVA needs fixing.
If the law doesn't provide for DVA to help this digger, we need to change the law.
Earlier this week, reader Truth in Footnotes posed this question:
Here's a well researched and authoritative response from the Desk of StephenJ!
Disability Discrimination Act
It is not disputed that the Vaccines do not prevent the acquisition or transmission of Covid.
It is acknowledged that their effectiveness is limited to reducing the severity of any illness over a relatively short period ie 6 months and that that effectiveness reduces over this period to the point where any such benefit is immaterial unless supplemented by boosters.
Whether such boosters would be required indefinitely is at the moment not established however in the most heavily vaccinated country, Israel, the 4th treatment is being administered.
Statistics from the United Kingdom show that Hospitalisation rates for vaccinated covid patients are roughly equivalent to the percentage of the population which has received two injections.
There is no scientific study I am aware of that establishes that a vaccinated person who contracts the virus is less likely to transmit it than an unvaccinated person who contracts it and if such a fact exists it must be a rapidly decreasing function of time since the last vaccination
Natural immunity obtained after recovery from the disease provides protection which is many times more effective and long lasting than that provided by the vaccines.
The vaccines produce large numbers of adverse reactions, including death, which are acknowledged as having been underreported based on historical observations in relation to these systems.
Vaccination of those with Natural immunity place those people at greater risk of such adverse reactions occurring.
1. What is a Disability
It is defined in the Act as
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 4
"disability" , in relation to a person, means:
(a) total or partial loss of the person's bodily or mental functions; or
(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or
(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or
d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or
(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person's body; or
(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or
(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;
and includes a disability that:
(h) presently exists; or
(i) previously existed but no longer exists; or
(j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or
(k) is imputed to a person
It includes behaviour or consequences which necessarily flow from the underlying disability eg violent behaviour as a manifestation of brain damage. Purvis v New South Wales [2003] HCA 62; 217 CLR 92
It would include the possibility that organisms causing disease or illness may be present in the future.
Taking this to its logical conclusion every person presumably has multiple disabilities consisting of the fact that it is theoretically possible to catch every disease known to man at some stage in the future.
1.1 What Disabilty are the vaccine mandates directed at
An example is provided by a Victorian Direction
Directions from Acting Chief Health Officer in accordance with emergency powers arising from declared state of emergency COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccination Directions (No 5) Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) Section 200 I, Professor Benjamin Cowie, Acting Chief Health Officer, consider it reasonably necessary to protect public health to give the following directions pursuant to section 200(1)(d) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (PHW Act): PART 1 — PRELIMINARY 1 Preamble (1) The purpose of these directions is to impose obligations upon operators of specified facilities in relation to the vaccination of workers, in order to limit the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within the population in these settings.
The disability is SARS- CoV-2 ie an organism which causes or is capable of causing illness or disease and which may be present in the body in the future.
The stated motive for the direction is to limit the spread of Covid.
It asserts that limiting access of the unvaccinated to workplaces will achieve this.
2. What is Discrimination
The types of Discrimination were described in
Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2017] FCAFC 128
“A distinction is often drawn between two forms of discrimination, namely "direct" or "disparate treatment" discrimination and "indirect" or "adverse impact" discrimination. Broadly speaking, direct discrimination occurs where one person is treated in a different manner (in a less favourable sense) from the manner in which another is or would be treated in comparable circumstances on the ground of some unacceptable consideration (such as sex or race). On the other hand, indirect discrimination occurs where one person appears to be treated just as another is or would be treated but the impact of such "equal" treatment is that the former is in fact treated less favourably than the latter. The concept of indirect discrimination was first developed in the United States in relation to practices which had a disproportionate impact upon black workers as opposed to white workers (44). Both direct and indirect discrimination therefore entail one person being treated less favourably than another person. The major difference is that in the case of direct discrimination the treatment is on its face less favourable, whereas in the case of indirect discrimination the treatment is on its face neutral but the impact of the treatment on one person when compared with another is less favourable”
2.1 Direct Discrimination
This is dealt with in Section 5 of the Discrimination Act
Direct disability discrimination
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person ) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if, because of the disability, the discriminator treats, or proposes to treat, the aggrieved person less favourably than the discriminator would treat a person without the disability in circumstances that are not materially different.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) also discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person ) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:
(a) the discriminator does not make, or proposes not to make, reasonable adjustments for the person; and
(b) the failure to make the reasonable adjustments has, or would have, the effect that the aggrieved person is, because of the disability, treated less favourably than a person without the disability would be treated in circumstances that are not materially different.
(3) For the purposes of this section, circumstances are not materially different because of the fact that, because of the disability, the aggrieved person requires adjustments.
The method of applying Sub section (1) was provided in Purvis.
Attention must first be directed to the circumstances surrounding the treatment of the Complainant so that the circumstance to be attributed to the Comparator, that are not materially different, can be set.
Purvis was concerned with a student who had suffered brain damage as a child and as a consequence exhibited violent behaviour. He was expelled. The appeal was dismissed.
“In the present case, the circumstances in which Daniel was treated as he was, included, but were not limited to, the fact that he had acted as he had. His violent actions towards teachers and others formed part of the circumstances in which it was said that he was treated less favourably than other pupils. Section 5(1) then presented two questions:
(i) How, in those circumstances, would the educational authority have treated a person without Daniel's disability?
(ii) If Daniel's treatment was less favourable than the treatment that would be given to a person without the disability, was that because of Daniel's disability?”
“s 5(1) requires that the circumstances attending the treatment given (or to be given) to the disabled person must be identified. What must then be examined is what would have been done in those circumstances if the person concerned was not disabled”
The relevant comparison was to a student who exhibited violent behaviour without having suffered the brain damage.
In the case of a Disability which we are concerned with, what are the circumstances that are not materially different, for a person without the Disability?
The Disability is the potential to be infected with Covid in the future.
The comparison must be with some person (with the same personal background as the complainant) with the potential to be infected with some other disease in the future. That disease must have available vaccines with substantially the features outlined in the introduction.
This defines the comparator with circumstances not materially different but without the disability described. How would an unvaccinated comparator in this situation be treated?
The obvious virus to consider is one of the influenza strains (corona viruses) which circulate(d) through the hemispheres on a seasonal basis. These viruses can cause deaths.
There are vaccines available for these viruses which do not prevent acquisition of the virus or consequently its transmission.
Various scientific studies have been completed which estimate vaccine effectiveness against the various strains which are prominent in any given year; eg
“Effectiveness” relates to the percentage of positive cases that have been vaccinated.
There have been no vaccine mandates restricting peoples capacity to attend workplaces in relation to disabilities involving the influenza viruses.
The conclusion, if the comparator is a person as described, must be that discrimination under Section 5(1) has occurred as a result of the Directive.
The Directive itself specifies that “because of” of the disability (potential corona virus acquisition ) the different treatment is applied. Vaccination status is a circumstance surrounding that treatment.
In Purvis the causative requirement was set out as follows
“For present purposes, it is enough to say that we doubt that distinctions between motive, purpose or effect will greatly assist the resolution of any problem about whether treatment occurred or was proposed "because of" disability. Rather, the central question will always be - why was the aggrieved person treated as he or she was? If the aggrieved person was treated less favourably was it "because of", "by reason of", that person's disability? Motive, purpose, effect may all bear on that question. But it would be a mistake to treat those words as substitutes for the statutory expression "because of".”
The obligations imposed by the Directive (on employers re vaccination status) are the means by which the stated purpose (to limit spread of the virus) is to be achieved; but the discrimination which results is because of attributes associated with the disability (the ability to spread it). These attributes necessarily flow from the potential to contract the disease in the future and are part of the Disability “because of” which the different treatment occurs.
If there is any doubt about this situation it is removed by
“DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 10
Act done because of disability and for other reason
If:
(a) an act is done for 2 or more reasons; and
(b) one of the reasons is the disability of a person (whether or not it is the dominant or a substantial reason for doing the act);
then, for the purposes of this Act, the act is taken to be done for that reason.”
Any difficulty encountered in specifying “circumstances not materially different” relates to the effect of the Covid “vaccines”. They might be termed vaccines in the same sense as Aspirin might be called a vaccine for headaches.
If no Comparator can be delineated discrimination under Section 5(1) cannot be proved.
2.2 Infectious Diseases
If discrimination has occurred the application of the Act may be prevented by
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 48
Infectious diseases
This Part does not render it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's disability if:
(a) the person's disability is an infectious disease; and
(b) the discrimination is reasonably necessary to protect public health.
As a result of the way the Disability in question has been defined it must be regarded as an infectious disease.
However the section acknowledges that absent its applicability discrimination can exist in relation to an infectious disease.
Public Health must relate to the health of individual members of the Public and it must take into account all health effects of the discrimination.
To interpret it otherwise would allow measures which on an overall assessment of their effects would result in a net injury to the aim of protecting Public Health.
For example the direct effects of the vaccines in producing adverse effects and deaths must be factored in as must the psychological effects.
These effects must be estimated over a potentially extended period.
The long term effects on health of the vaccines can only be established by proper clinical trials over an extended period. That has not occurred.
Without this information no one is in a position to reach a conclusion on whether the discrimination is necessary to protect public health.
There is in fact evidence to suggest the vaccination programme will result in a net injury to Public Health when the factors referred to above are properly taken into account.
If it cannot be proved that the discrimination is reasonably necessary to protect Public Health section 48 is not applicable.
2.3 Natural Immunity
A person with natural immunity can still theoretically acquire the disease at some point in the future.
The immunity will wane over a period, that from the available evidence, will extend long after any benefit provided by a vaccine.
Such a person therefore has a disability but the circumstances which need to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the features of the comparator would include the existence of a natural immunity to the influenza virus (assuming that is the appropriate test).
Would such a person be denied access to a workplace because they had the potential to acquire influenza (in circumstances where they were unvaccinated against this but had natural immunity to it) in the further circumstance that the influenza vaccine did not add to their protection and may cause harm.
In any sane Administration the answer is obviously not.
Further requiring such a person to be vaccinated can not add anything to the safety of other persons at the workplace. In fact it may detract from the health of the person coerced into the vaccination.
The requirement in Section 48 that the discrimination be reasonably necessary to protect Public Health can not be sustained.
2.4 Reasonable Adjustments
Sub section 5(2) also provides for discrimination in the absence of a reasonable adjustment.
"reasonable adjustment" : an adjustment to be made by a person is a reasonable adjustment unless making the adjustment would impose an unjustifiable hardship on the person.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 11
Unjustifiable hardship
(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person ) would be an unjustifiable hardship , all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:
(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned;
(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned;
(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person;
(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person;
(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.
Example: One of the circumstances covered by paragraph (1)(a) is the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, the community.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.
It might be thought that some allowance in applying the vaccine mandates would be reasonable in relation to those with natural immunity ie that it might be reasonable to test for the existence of such immunity and exempt those with it from the vaccine requirement.
However it must be noted that it is the employer who is placed under a duty by the State to exclude unvaccinated persons from the workplace and if they fail to do so penalties would be payable.
Whilst it is arguable that the State provisions have no effect to the extent of their inconsistency with the Disability Discrimination Act it would be an unjustifiable hardship to expect an Employer to embark on a Constitutional argument with the State Government to establish that.
2.5 State Law
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 47
(2) This Part does not render unlawful anything done by a person in direct compliance with a prescribed law.
(5) In subsection (2):
"law" means:
(a) a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; or
(b) regulations or any other instrument made under such a law.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 132
Regulations
1) The Governor-General may make regulations prescribing matters:
(a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or
(b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.
To date no laws have been prescribed.
It would be possible for the Commonwealth Executive to prescribe the Victorian Public Health Act and regulations made under it for the purposes of Section 47.
In doing so of course the Federal Government would be unable to disclaim its support for such measures and it may call into question the sincerity of various statements about not mandating vaccines.
2.6 Indirect Discrimination
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 6
Indirect disability discrimination
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person ) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:
(a) the discriminator requires, or proposes to require, the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition; and
(b) because of the disability, the aggrieved person does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply, with the requirement or condition; and
(c) the requirement or condition has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with the disability.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) also discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person ) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:
(a) the discriminator requires, or proposes to require, the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition; and
(b) because of the disability, the aggrieved person would comply, or would be able to comply, with the requirement or condition only if the discriminator made reasonable adjustments for the person, but the discriminator does not do so or proposes not to do so; and
(c) the failure to make reasonable adjustments has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with the disability.
(3) Subsection (1) or (2) does not apply if the requirement or condition is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the case.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the burden of proving that the requirement or condition is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the case, lies on the person who requires, or proposes to require, the person with the disability to comply with the requirement or condition.
For the reasons given under the preceding headings under point 2 and the factors set out in the introduction it is arguable that the condition relating to vaccination is not reasonable (ss(3)). However countering this is the circumstance that the requirements are prescribed by State Law. On balance Sub section 2 is unavailable in relation to those with natural immunity for the reasons set out under point 2.4.
Sub section 1(a) and 1(c) would apply to all unvaccinated persons denied access to a workplace however can it be said that because of the disability (the potential to acquire the disease in the future and transmit it) the complainant “does not or would not comply “ or “is not able or would not be able to comply”.
Certainly a person with natural immunity or concerns about vaccine safety may not comply for those reasons. Someone who say had blood clotting or heart issues may feel they are not able to comply.
However neither of these situations would be because of the disability we are concerned with.
Section 6 is therefore not applicable.
3. Actions prohibited
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 15
Discrimination in employment
(2) It is unlawful for an employer or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of an employer to discriminate against an employee on the ground of the employee's disability:
(c) by dismissing the employee; or
(d) by subjecting the employee to any other detriment.
In the absence of any prescription under Section 48 an Employer who applies the vaccine mandates will breach Section 15.
Section 109 of the Constitution will render inoperative any State Law which is inconsistent with the Disability Discrimination Act.
If this position is correct the directions on vaccine mandates have no effect to the extent they impose penalties on Employers for failing to enforce them.
The directions also impose penalties on “workers” who attend premises when unvaccinated.
This is not an action by the Employer but the State.
The state can be described as a Body Politic.
ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 2C
References to persons
(1) In any Act, expressions used to denote persons generally (such as "person", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no-one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual.
The Discrimination Act applies to the Commonwealth and States
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 14
Extent to which Act binds the Crown
(1) This Act binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and of each of the States.
It is consistent with the objects of the Act that the prohibitions it contains should apply to discriminatory acts by the States for reasons of a Disability as defined.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 3
Objects
The objects of this Act are:
(a) to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability in the areas of:
(i) work, accommodation, education, access to premises, clubs and sport; and
(ii) the provision of goods, facilities, services and land; and
(iii) existing laws; and
(iv) the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs; and
(b) to ensure, as far as practicable, that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community; and
(c) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.
Consequently if the actions of the State have the effect of denying access to premises on a discriminatory basis the Discrimination Act can override its effect.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 23
Access to premises
It is unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's disability:
(b) in the terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned person is prepared to allow the other person access to, or the use of, any such premises
(e) in the terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned person is prepared to allow the other person the use of any such facilities; or
(f) by requiring the other person to leave such premises or cease to use such facilities.
If the above is correct the provisions of the directions denying access are inconsistent with the Disability Act and inoperative.
WASHINGTON—The Biden administration is in talks to offer immigrant families that were separated during the Trump administration around $450,000 a person in compensation, according to people familiar with the matter, as several agencies work to resolve lawsuits filed on behalf of parents and children who say the government subjected them to lasting psychological trauma.
The U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services are considering payments that could amount to close to $1 million a family, though the final numbers could shift, the people familiar with the matter said. Most of the families that crossed the border illegally from Mexico to seek asylum in the U.S. included one parent and one child, the people said. Many families would likely get smaller payouts, depending on their circumstances, the people said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents families in one of the lawsuits, has identified about 5,500 children separated at the border over the course of the Trump administration, citing figures provided to it by the government. The number of families eligible under the potential settlement is expected to be smaller, the people said, as government officials aren’t sure how many will come forward. Around 940 claims have so far been filed by the families, the people said.
The total potential payout could be $1 billion or more.
As part of a so-called zero-tolerance enforcement policy, immigration agents separated thousands of children, ranging from infants to teenagers, from their parents at the southern border in 2018 after they had crossed illegally from Mexico to seek asylum in the U.S. In some cases families were forcefully broken up with no provisions to track and later reunite them, government investigations found. The lawsuits allege some of the children suffered from a range of ailments, including heat exhaustion and malnutrition, and were kept in freezing cold rooms and provided little medical attention.
Many of the lawsuits describe lasting mental-health problems for the children from the trauma of the months without their parents in harsh conditions, including anxiety, a fear of strangers and nightmares. The lawsuits seek a range of payouts, with the average demand being roughly $3.4 million per family, some of the people said.
In recent months, lawyers for the families and the government have told courts overseeing the cases that they are engaged in settlement negotiations and hoped to reach a deal by the end of November.
“President Biden has agreed that the family separation policy is a historic moral stain on our nation that must be fully remedied,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s immigrant-rights project and a lead negotiator on one of the lawsuits. “That remedy must include not only meaningful monetary compensation, but a pathway to remain in the country.”
#ICAC intercepted phone call between Wagga MP Daryl Maguire, who had pledged to resign, and NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian on 30 July 2018. Berejiklian says she will "throw money at Wagga" during byelection and "overrule" bureaucrats to give city a new stadium. #nswpol pic.twitter.com/HdWii4040D
— Rex Martinich (@RexMartinich) October 28, 2021
Worth watching it at 1080 HD if your broadband can hack it - the definition from my mate's GoPro is quite something!