Greens confirm they will remove parents’ choice

– Greg Beattie

A letter written by a staffer from Greens Senator Richard Di Natale’s office has confirmed the party’s intention to pursue the removal of parental choice from vaccination:

 “The Greens do not support compulsory vaccination. We do however support the government’s recently announced amendments to Family Tax Benefit system… Parents will still be able to decide not to vaccinate their children, but this choice will have a financial impact.”

iStock_000013256542XSmallThis can be taken to mean: “The Greens do not support hunting, holding down, and vaccinating children by force”. (And that’s just as well because it would mean the violation of just about every human right in existence.) “We do however support penalties for those who won’t submit peacefully.” Gotcha.

The letter was received by an AVN supporter just yesterday, a full nine weeks after her request for clarification was received by his office! We can now be certain Di Natale’s recent repeated announcements that the party does not support compulsion was nothing but a deceptive ploy to avoid losing disapproving voters on the eve of tomorrow’s election.

We can also be certain, from its recent actions, that the Greens are now the most anti-choice political force in the land. In NSW Parliament this year they argued vigorously to have all parental choice removed from the ‘No jab, no play’ legislation. They introduced two separate amendments. The first was a blanket attempt to remove all conscientious and religious exemptions. That was voted down. The second was a ‘Plan-B’ attempt to sneak around opposition by suggesting pre-schools could ‘choose’ whether they wanted to accept the children of conscientious and religious objectors. That was also voted down.

It was not long after that Di Natale delivered his error-laden and mischievous address to Federal Parliament, calling for the disbanding of AVN. Was this a burst of frustration?

One thing is clear: a vote for the Greens tomorrow is a vote for medical fundamentalism. If they are given political power we can kiss goodbye our freedom of choice with vaccines. And once this happens it will be virtually impossible to reverse.

The party that once stood for integrity, social justice, and the environment, has just tacked mass-medication onto the list. And like an aggressive cancer it has the potential to kill the host if not removed. It has already paralysed its leaders.

If you value what the Greens once stood for please don’t vote for them tomorrow. Instead send them a clear message that you will not tolerate voter deception being condoned to cover up the party’s intentions. And you will certainly not tolerate your cherished party being infiltrated by industry.


  1. As a quite new Australian I don’t know if I would ever have voted for the Greens. But now I know for sure I never will. Forced medical treatment is forbidden by the constitution. The Greens are now playing word games with the constitution! How low can you go as a politician?

    If not doing X means you get any kind of penalty, then X is compulsory. If X is voluntary, then there is no penalty whatsoever if you don’t do it.
    But according to the Greens, voting is not compulsory. You will just get fined if you won’t show up. Obviously voting is first compulsory if the army will show up at your doorstep to force you to the polling station. Makes me wonder how they will define compulsory seat belt wearing?

  2. Are there any parties that support a parent’s right to informed choice and refusal?

  3. It is a sad situation because both big parties are feral. So now we have to choose between independents and wikileaks.

  4. > This can be taken to mean: “The Greens do not support hunting, holding
    > down, and vaccinating children by force”. (And that’s just as well because
    > it would mean the violation of just about every human right in existence.)

    They may not hold children down and vaccinate by force, but BOTH Labour & Liberal DO support forced vaccination.

    A neighbour made a false complaint to child protection. My family were removed. The same corrupt government department that did this, then proceeded to tell numerous lies about my family, but me in particular being the husband. They could not find any hard evidence to support their fabricated lies. No alcohol, no drugs, no police reports, no abuse… They closed the case, but refused to tell my wife if it were safe (from them) to return home. They refused to communicate with her any further.

    When they did return home, child protection workers came again but took our children from both of us – claiming they had told my wife not to return home, and she had therefore, “put the children at risk of significant harm” by ever daring to place our family back together again. Child protection then immediately vaccinated our children. Our 5 year old had never had a vaccine pierce his skin. They immediately gave this child EVERY vaccine he “missed”. Oh, they didn’t “force” because the child was only 5 – so how could it say no? Force? No – but they did just wipe away our right to say no.

    When the elder children said, “NO!” to vaccines, they were told we their parents were conspiracy theorists, asked don’t you know vaccination is good?, don’t you know you won’t get a job if you’re not vaccinated? Finally they told our children they had no choice in the matter anyway. They HAD to do it. One of our children is 16. The law supposedly states they can say no – but were told they had NO RIGHT TO SAY NO and had to DO WHAT THEY WERE TOLD.

    The reason we originally chose not to vaccinate was, the eldest child had a toxic reaction. Child protection knew this. After they vaccinated the children against our (and their) will, child protection proudly proclaimed in paperwork to a magistrate, “There were no negative reactions.” … as if to paint us as careless and foolish – and justify their own “concern” for our children. (Yeah right – if they were concerned about our children, they wouldn’t have traumatised them.)

    Now we all know toxic reactions do occur. So I asked our solicitor, “And tell me what would have happened if our children DID have a toxic reaction, or had even died?” He replied, “Child protection would have been blameless. They would just have palmed any concerns of the court off on the doctor – since they were only requiring what is widely accepted as correct health practice.”

    Our children are now back in our care, thanks to the rare honest magistrate who for some reason unknown to us and our solicitors, took our side over child protection workers. They told the magistrate they would only agree to returning our children (and not go into a court case) if we continued to vaccinate ALL our children – even though the 16 year old is supposed to have the right to say no!

    So you tell me… does any politician support “hunting, holding down, and vaccinating children by force”? YES they DAMN WELL DO! Remember they hunted that baby a few years ago with the Hep B positive mother? The filthy, lying, corrupt, child support system in this country (that is creating the new stolen generation), effectively does “hunt” and “force”, by blackmailing parents like us into agreeing to vaccinate, or lose your children forever to a court system that does not even allow parents or children to speak until the very END of proceedings, and meanwhile assumes everything child protection fabricates against you is true – long after parents AND children have been traumatised and torn apart.

    By the way – some facts:

    1. A child only has to be in foster care for two years in this country, to not only be adopted out – but never see their parents again, have their name changed to whatever the “new family” chooses, and grant permission for organ donation. The “new” family also receives hundreds of extra tax-free dollars and concessions from the government that the real family were not entitled to.

    2. The person who placed the original false report can choose to be totally anonymous. They will suffer ZERO repercussions for making the false complaint. That is if child protection, a judge, or police, even cared if it were false – which they don’t. In fact, if the parents agree to child protection demands in order to prevent a court case and have their children returned, the parents do not get to clear their name of the false accusations. Given the choice no parent would want to go to court, as nearly all cases that get that far into the corrupt child protection system lose their children forever. It is therefore, assumed by all that child protection were justified in their Nazi-like behaviour – that the false complaint had merit! It just sits there on the parents’ record, a fear that hangs over the head of the entire family until each child turns 18. But it doesn’t stop there. I’ve also read accounts of adults who were removed from their parents as children, being persecuted by child protection because they’re “more likely to need intervention”.

    3. Even when a child is supposed to be able to make their own life decisions, child protection can still get a warrant from a judge to remove them. Police, judges, and child protection case workers circumvent your child’s legal rights, by saying they are “initially removing them for their own safety”. Only months AFTER it goes through children’s court, can a child say, “I want to go home!” and actually be listened to by a magistrate. They will even still produce orders saying no – but the child can THEN just walk out and go home. Until that point no one listens. Our 16 year old was told by someone in government – who was supposed to be there to protect them – they could not choose to go home – yet. That is how child protection works. They get to say anything they like, as long as it’s verbal and doesn’t appear on paper to bite them later on. Not that it ever would, because…

    4. Nothing child protection workers do during their so-called “investigation” (really persecution) of parents and children is swept under the carpet. Nothing is illegal for them, because they are PROTECTED by Australian law from ALL legal action during the course of their employment. No claim against them will even be considered, let alone be heard in a court or prosecuted. They could RAPE your daughter in their car after serving a removal warrant signed by a judge – and due to the protection they enjoy under Australian law, the worst that would happen to them is they get advised by superiors to move on to other employment. I’m serious – it’s online in their own documents for all to read. NO LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.

    To summarise – forced vaccination ALREADY EXISTS in Australia. I know, because I’ve been forced to vaccinate my children, under threat of never seeing them again.

    Finally, no-one looks at you the same. You’ve been “investigated” by the Nazis from child protection – and where there’s smoke there’s fire, right? Yeah right. Wait until it’s your turn.

  5. What an awful situation we are ended up: where compulsory means just that, whether by positive reinforcement of the absence of a penalty. Arguing a case shouldn’t result in tightening of the loopholes if they caused no harm.
    The sheep queue at Big Pharma’s doors to find out what to say next, more publications with questionable results pile up to deny the data you can see in front of your very eyes.
    Who’s paying the Greens for this stance? Are they buckling to pressures from public to get votes or from above?
    Wee need to know who to vote for.

  6. A judge in the USA has given the rights to Amish parents to say no to chemotherapy for their daughter. The child has also had a voice in the matter. I wonder how the Greens would handle this if given a chance? Also another news item today is that there is a measles outbreak in Ipswich and there is no common factor in any of the cases. There is no blame attached to any unvaccinated person. One wonders if the people who have caught them might be vaccinated. How would the Greens explain this to their constituents? That their strong-arm tactics to get everyone vaccinated is unbased and to force the people to have the vaccines is against their democratic rights?

Comments are closed.