Page 2 of 4

Administering Vaccines Against a Person’s Wishes is Illegal

The following information was posted to the Fans of the AVN Facebook Page and is reprinted here with the permission of the original author. I am also trying to obtain a copy of the StatuCoerciontory Declaration this mother gave to the two doctors who refused to vaccinate her child and will post that here when/if I am able to get the text.
For those who oppose coercive vaccination policies and want to convince the government that their discriminatory legislation will backfire, this may just be a quick, inexpensive option.

If you do go ahead and do this, please let me know by sending an email to me here.

I have posted my letter today back to Centrelink I had an appointment with a lawyer about it last week… here it is if anyone wants to do the same….

Dear Service Centre Manager
Locked bag
7834 Canberra BC ACT 2610
19/12/2015

To whom it may concern,

I recently received a letter from Centrelink dated 2 December, 2015, informing me that in order to qualify for the continuation of the Family Tax benefit and childcare fee assistance, i need to ensure that my child is fully vaccinated. I am unable to complete the vaccination requirements for my child because I cannot find a doctor who will vaccinate my child, knowing that I am being financially coerced.

To do so would breach informed consent and leave them liable for medical trespass.

Under section 2..1..3
http://www.health.gov.au/…/Handbook10-home…
consent must be valid. For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8

  • It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
  • It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
  • It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
  • It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual

I am a conscientious objector to vaccination and so do not agree with my child being administered vaccines, due to much evidence regarding the toxicity of vaccines. Please watch and listen to this video if you can as there is much new evidence presented here by an immunologist who used to make vaccines.
https://vimeo.com/146831570

Because of my precarious financial position as a single mother /teacher able to work only between school hours and/or the possibility of my child being disadvantaged by the denial of an early education, I am being put into the untenable and the coercive position of giving my child a medical intervention that I know is not in his best interests, against my will.

On Thursday, 17th December, 2015 my doctor refused to vaccinate my child against my will and has signed a statutory declaration acknowledging that my consent is not voluntary which I have attached. On Tuesday, the 22nd December, another Dr also refused to vaccinate my child against my will and Statuatory declaration is also included.

So I have fulfilled the vaccination requirements for my son to the best of my ability and it is from no fault of my own that the doctor refuses to vaccinate my child against my will.

If you cannot provide a doctor who is willing to sign a legal document stating that they are willing to administer vaccinations to my son without my consent by the 15th January 2016, then I will consider your contract as null and void and as such, the immunisation requirements for my son XXXXXX will be considered to be met.
Yours Sincerely…

Urgent update on Submissions to Senate Committee “No Jab, No Pay”

by Meryl Dorey

 I just got off the phone with the Secretariat of the Senate Commitee that is considering submissions on the No Jab, No Pay legislation. For those who have not been aware of what is happening with this, you can click here and here to read more.

The Secretariat told me some very important information so whether you have already sent in your submission or you were planning on doing so today, you MUST read this first because today is the deadline for all submissions and your voice counts! Submissions have to be received by 5 PM AEST – there is a 1 hour grace period but no more.

1- If you have not included your contact details (Name, Address, Phone number), your submission will not be accepted. Please note – it has been brought to my attention that submissions made via the committee’s web form will always collect this information so only if you mailed, emailed or FAXed your forms will this be a concern.

2- If your submission does not touch on the Bill at all, your submission will be taken as correspondence and will not be counted. If you say somewhere either in the body of your submission or, should you be sending it as email, in the introduction, that this is your submission, then it will be considered as a submission. One wording that I’ve seen on several submissions is: Attached please find my submission to the Senate Enquiry on the abovementioned Amendment Bill.” This is good wording should you wish to ‘borrow’ it.

3 – I was told that there were so many submissions that it is possible they may not all be dealt with prior to the time that the Committee needs to report back to the Senate on the 9th of November. This is not acceptable!  I just received information that over 1,000 submissions have been counted so far and it is expected that over 2,000 will have been received by the deadline this afternoon. I’m not sure if this is a record for any public inquiry by the Senate but it’s got to be close. It is so obvious that even Blind Freddy can see it, that this issue deserves time and serious consideration – not lip service and rushed decisions.

4- I was told that no promises will be made, but the Committee is considering holding a public hearing. We MUST put pressure on them to do this. We are voiceless without the opportunity to ask and answer questions in person as well as in writing.

Here is what I am asking everyone to do and it is vital that you do the first part today – the second can wait until next week if you’re pressed for time:

1- Check your submissions. If you feel that there is ANY chance that it will not be acceptable as a submission, edite it, add the wording about this being a submission, and resubmit it. Everyone one of us needs to be counted. Remember to do this before 6 PM this afternoon AEST.

2- Send an email to the Committee Secretariat demanding that they ask for an extension of time to properly consider the information they have received and also, that a public hearing be held to allow us to air our views before the senators. You can send this correspondence to the following email address – community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au.

Again, with ALL submissions and correspondence, include your full name, address and phone contact. You can certainly ask them to withhold this information when they publish your submission on the website and they will do so but they won’t accept submissions without these details.

One last thing, I have tried to send an acknowledgement to everyone who has forwarded their submissions to me but I have been sick over this last week and was unable to do so. Please take it as read that I LOVE what you are doing, appreciate each and every one of you and will try very hard to get back to you over the coming days. Keep copying me in on your submissions – I get a little thrill every time I read one 🙂

The clock is ticking-Talking points for your letters and visits to parliamentarians

by Meryl Dorey and Joe Guy

Extreme Law Extreme InjusticeSince my last blog post about the letter-writing campaign, there have been some developments that need to be shared. These updates demonstrate very clearly that:

1- The States of Victoria and QLD plan on stopping children from attending childcare and pre-school no matter what proof has been provided to them that this is discriminatory; it won’t achieve the goal of increasing vaccination rates; it will hurt those who are least able to withstand this sort of financial burden; it will force women out of the workforce and onto the dole; it will not reduce the burden of disease or increase the mythical ‘herd immunity’.

The Committee in QLD that treated the pro-choice representatives with such disrespect a couple of weeks ago, has recommended that Parliament pass the legislation allowing childcare centres to deny access to unvaccinated children. You can read their recommendation at this link.

The Victorian Committee is meeting on Monday, October 5th, to consider their legislation to block the admission of children to childcare and preschool. You can email your submissions to them this weekend (you do NOT need to live in Victoria to make a submission and your submission can be very short but it would be incredibly helpful to make one NOW) – the more submissions they receive, the better. Send your submissions to sarc@parliament.vic.gov.au

Here is the Victorian information, as provided by one of this blog’s intrepid readers:

The Bill, The Explanatory Memorandum, which includes the Statement of Compatibility With Human Rights and the Second reading (scroll down and click on Bill # 45, which is called “Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (No Jab, No Play) Bill 2015”:
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/static/www.legislation.vic.gov.au-bills.html

 

2- The intent is to eventually restrict unvaccinated children from school altogether and, with the introduction of the Adult Australian Immunisation [sic] Register, to eventually discriminate against everyone who chooses not to follow the full government vaccination schedule which could include literally hundreds of different vaccines. Education, jobs and other things that we currently consider our rights will be taken away from us if the government has its way and we allow it (driver’s licenses, public transport, the right to freely mix with others).

3- The Senate Inquiry is not planning on holding public hearings at this point in time. This is a sure indication that they are simply paying lip service to our concerns. We must DEMAND the right to appear before them in public and both ask and answer questions before they sign our rights away.

4- Both Federal and State governments have been warned that these moves are unconstitutional and breach the Discrimination Disability Act 1992.  Despite this sure knowledge, they have decided to proceed with their illegal legislation. This is a waste of our tax dollars and they are only doing it because they feel safe in the knowledge that we will not take legal action against them. Foolish thought when we plan on doing just that should they proceed to enact these laws.

If you have not yet pledged to the AVN’s fund-raising appeal for legal action against the QLD, VIC and Federal Governments (remember, these pledges will only be called in should the organisation decide to proceed with legal action, and that will only happen if the government insist on discriminating against our families), NOW is the time to do so. There are nearly 20,000 people who will read this blog post. If every single one of you pledged only $5, there would be enough money to begin these actions. If you pledged more, there might not be a need for further fund-raising.

5- This came to light last night – too late to include in the talking points below – but it IS important and just another sign that the government and our legislators are ignoring the constitution and the law of the land:

“National Partnership Agreements

The first National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education was signed by the Council of Australian Governments on 29 November 2008. Under this agreement, all governments committed to work together to ensure that all children have access to a quality early childhood education programme, delivered by a qualified early childhood teacher for 600 hours of preschool education in the year before they attend full-time school.”

“Under the National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education – 2015 state and territory governments must develop Implementation Plans that set out the strategies to provide universal access including participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged children, and indigenous children.”

https://education.gov.au/national-partnership-agreements

Every family will lose a minimum of $14,000 per child if the Federal legislation proceeds. How much can you afford to pledge in order to protect those funds? How much are you prepared to pledge to protect your children’s and your own future? How much is it worth to you to be able to continue working without having to subject your body to dozens of mandatory vaccines and an invasive register that tracks you for the rest of your life?

Here is the page where you can make your pledge. Think carefully about how much you pledge to donateare willing to donate should the need arise and please share this with every friend, family member and associate who might be willing to help as well. If you are a health practitioner, forward this link to your clients. We MUST get the word out. We MUST be active and prepared to do what is needed to protect our rights. Revolutions have started for less. Let’s have a peaceful revolution against tyrannical government measures in the courts.

Below are ‘talking points’ that were compiled by Joe Guy for you t0 use in your letters to both Federal and State Parliaments. As you can see, this was an absolutely massive effort on Joe’s part and he did it over a matter of just a couple of days (and nights without sleep). I thank him from the bottom of my heart and know that you will find his information to be invaluable! You should all read it through if you can but if not, please skim and set it aside to read later because this is an education in why the government’s actions (both state and federal) are illegal.

There are many points in this document – just choose a few that you feel are important and be sure to include your own personal stories  as well. Also DEMAND that the Senate Inquiry holds a public hearing to allow us to ask and answer questions about this legislation.

It is also vitally important to make an appointment to meet with your Federal and State Members (in QLD and VIC) to express your concerns about these proposed laws. Get friends together and go as a group for moral support if that would mean you are more likely to go. Go by yourself if you don’t need those friends. Do it this next week or the week after at the absolute latest.

If anyone in the Northern Rivers area of NSW would like to come with me to meet our Federal Member of Parliament, please email me to let me know. Give me your name and your contact number (s) – I will be back in touch. I would love your company.

Introduction

Eleventh HourWhen the Australian Vaccination Network, as it was then called, turned its attention a few years ago to the apparent intent by Australian governments to introduce mandatory vaccination of children, its critics scoffed at the idea that any government would consider it.

Now that the unthinkable is before Federal Parliament and plans are well under way to make vaccination unavoidable and to extend such pressure to adolescents [G1,G2] and then to adults, these same critics, having subverted the AVN’s mission by framing the AVN for a wide range of unseemly and illegal behaviour, find themselves caught in a trap of their own devising.

Parents and others concerned to defend the freedom not to buy into vaccines are highly concerned at the spate of new state and federal legislation designed to coerce parents into having their healthy children vaccinated.  The present attempt to legislate against such freedom federally is the Australian government’s Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015.

The bill was presented in parliament and referred to the Senate Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report on 17 September 2015.

Submissions to the inquiry must be made by 16 October 2015.

The committee MUCH prefers submissions using their online form by clicking this link. Next is emailing your submission to this link, and last and not preferred at all is hard copy to the following address:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3515
Fax: +61 2 6277 5829

Unlike the far broader “biosecurity” legislation that slipped through Federal Parliament in May and June, this bill is specifically designed to force parents to either suffer vaccination of their children or suffer financial penalties.

The present document musters arguments and resources to support the many basic human rights that vaccination coerced through economic pressure, social stigma, scientific and mass-media censorship, “biosecurity” requirements, or even the threat of imprisonment would violate.

The substance of the document takes the form of “talking points”, which fall under a number of broad topics relating to the wrongfulness of practically compelling the vaccination of infants.  You can use it as a ready tool for letting the inquiry — and anybody else — know just what you think is wrong with the idea of forcing vaccination upon the unwilling.  Many of these talking points will be useful also in fighting violation of the rights of adolescents and adults to refuse vaccination.  Copy and paste, or paraphrase, individual talking points as you see fit, and use the very solid references that accompany them to show that your claims are well founded.

The document is a living document: it will grow, and evolve somewhat, as time goes by.  It addresses one broad topic at a time. Beneath each topic are listed brief talking points.  The talking points are then treated in greater detail, for those who like detail, and, in appropriate cases, are referenced.  The references are credible enough to be beyond casual dismissal by anybody informed in the field.

The first two topics appear below.  They are:

Topic (1): Vaccine-injured and other disabled children as easy targets

and

Topic (2): Human rights, medical ethics, and illegal discrimination.

At present, other topics planned for inclusion in the document are:

Topic (3): Dealing with the claim that the unvaccinated pose a threat

Topic (4): Arbitrariness of the vaccinations scheduled for childhood

Topic (5): Reasons to question assumptions of vaccine harmlessness

Topic (6): Loss of the benefits of exposure to the natural diseases

Topic (7): The evolutionary perspective

Topic (8): Irrelevance of the “childhood” vaccines to historical declines in virulence

Topic (9): Infant medication by coercion as a precedent for universal forcible medication

Topic (10): Irresponsibility of medical authorities’ acting (including transmitting hearsay) without due consideration of the state of published evidence

Topic (11): The duty of governments to take the protection and social nourishment of the unvaccinated and their families, and of the vaccine-damaged and their families, into especial account in formulating legislation, regulation, and policy

Topic (12): The impossibility of informed consent, due to systematic concealment of full, relevant, accurate information and obstruction of independent evaluation

Topic (13): The urgent need for recall rather than dumping of poorly researched medical products, including all currently recommended childhood vaccines

Topic (14): The urgent need for independent investigation of the commercial and political corruption and economic distortions directly attributable to the pharmaceutical industry’s anti-human-rights campaigns.

These topics, though already partly complete, are likely to change somewhat as the work progresses.

Please remember your power as your representatives’ constituents to change governments or take them to court for violating the Constitution and international law.  The rights of parents and children are inalienable.  Our rights are neither deserved nor undeserved, but inherent in our humanity, and lie beyond the legal capacity of any government, however well meaning, to annul without the consent of the governed.

In the words of Justice Kirby, “It is important to recognise that the fundamental human rights referred to in the instruments of international law preceded the inclusion of reference to them in such instruments.  All that international law has done is to express the rights that inhere in human beings by virtue of their humanity” [G3].

Feel free!

Joe Guy

Australia, September 2015

REFERENCE

[G1] http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5526_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0.

[G2] http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201516/Vaccination.

“The Government intends to… expand the existing National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program Register (the HPV register) to include all adolescent vaccinations delivered in schools under the NIP.”

[G3] Justice Kirby in Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee (2009) 236 CLR 573), as quoted on page 199 of Thomas Faunce, “CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION PRACTICALLY COMPELLING MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT: WONG v COMMONWEALTH; SELIM v PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE”, <https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/users/u9705219/236-lawrep-017-jlm-jl-0196.pdf>.

========================================

Topic (1): Disabled children as easy targets

The talking points

1A: The proposed legislation systematically targets children legally recognised as people with disabilities: the vaccine-injured, and the unvaccinated.

Talking point 1A: The proposed legislation systematically targets children legally recognised as people with disabilities: the vaccine-injured, and the unvaccinated.

The law recognises children with long-term injuries and children who are not vaccinated in full compliance with the vaccination schedule published in their state of residence as persons with disabilities [DC1].

Many of the children who have not received the full complement of vaccines that their state vaccination schedule suggests are victims of prior vaccinations and suffer long-term disabilities.  Others are the siblings of such injured children.  These and unvaccinated children, whom the law recognises as also having disability, along with their parents and representatives, are those whom this and other recent legislation systematically targets.  (See related talking points under “Topic (2): Human rights, medical ethics, and illegal discrimination”.)

REFERENCE

[DC1] Disability Discrimination Act 1992, <http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264>.  The relevant section, section 4, defines disability thus:

“In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

‘disability’, in relation to a person, means… (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… and includes a disability that… (j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or (k) is imputed to a person”.

========================================

Topic (2): Human rights, medical ethics, and illegal discrimination

The talking points

2A:The parents who refuse vaccination of their children are conscientious parents, and discriminating against them causes unnecessary stress on finances and health for no documented gain.

2B:This punitive measure creates expectations of individual sacrifices that are outrageously out of keeping with community norms.

2C:The proposed legislation violates several of the international human-rights instruments that the Human Rights Commission Act 1986 serves to protect.

2D:The proposed legislation seeks to subvert the genuine choices that lie at the heart of human rights.

2E:The requirement for informed consent is enshrined in medical ethics, in human-rights instruments to which Australia is signatory, and in international law.

2F:The Australian Government itself acknowledges, on the Health Department’s web site, that legally valid consent can occur only “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

2G:The Australian Constitution s.51(xxiiiA) forbids Commonwealth provision of medical and dental services to require anybody to accept those services.

2H:Imposing economic pressure to accept medical services through legislation is a form of practical compulsion that subverts legally valid consent.

2J:The proposed legislation and other recent legislation to penalize the unvaccinated systematically breach the right to privacy of medical information.

2K:The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia, as well as the Constitution itself, of inalienable freedom of informed choice to refuse medical products and procedures.

2L:The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia guaranteeing freedom from arbitrary interference, exploitation, and violence.

2M:The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia forbidding, in accordance with medical ethics, exploitation by forcible treatment of one person for the purported benefit of another.

2N:Discrimination against children disabled by prior vaccinations would breach international law, as would differential access to child care on the basis of this disability.

2P:Discrimination against children imputed to be carrying disease-causing microorganisms by virtue of their vaccination status (such an imputation being defined in law as a disability) would breach international law, as would differential access to child care on the basis of this disability.

2Q:Various human-rights instruments in force in Australia oblige the Government to create protections against exploitation of and discrimination against children and the disabled such as the proposed legislation embodies.

2R:The proposed legislation would violate inalienable human rights to refusal of medical goods and services, to freedom from arbitrary medical interference, to freedom from discrimination on a basis of differing beliefs, to freedom from discrimination against persons with disabilities, to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, to freedom from discrimination against children, to freedom from discrimination against the disabled, to freedom from exploitation of children, and to requirements of bioethical transparency.

2S:The proposed legislation can meet its putative intent only by violating the most fundamental medical ethic, which forbids exploitation by imposition of the risk of a medical procedure on one person for the sake of another.

2T:The freedom to make voluntary decisions about what you are willing to risk your life or the life of your child for is a human and civil right.

2U:Nobody deserves to be written off by a drug company or government agency as an expendable casualty of public-health policy.

2V:According to Hippocratic tradition, the safety level of a preventive medicine must be very high, as it is aimed at protecting people against diseases that they may not contract.

2W:Compromising free informed consent by imposing any of the vaccines on Australia’s childhood vaccination schedules, all experimental, contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.

Talking point 2A: The parents who refuse vaccination of their children are conscientious parents, and discriminating against them causes unnecessary stress on finances and health for no documented gain.

Conscientious objectors to childhood vaccinations are by and large well-educated [HR1], and their objections truly are conscientious, as they have taken the trouble to research the important questions that the vaccination regimen raises rather than make foolhardy decisions on a basis of authoritative hearsay.  In many cases, they have sought the answers to difficult questions from their medical practitioners and health authorities and have been ignored, treated very badly, or told that the information requisite to a responsible decision to vaccinate simply does not exist.  In flagrant disregard both of legal requirements and of parental pleas for trustworthy information, parents facing vaccine decisions most commonly are not shown even the package inserts that accompany the vaccines whose injection into their children they are expected to acquiesce.

Financially penalising parents who conscientiously decide against unknown risks for undocumented benefits, rather than those who make uninformed decisions to risk drugs with little to no assurance of safety and no proof of benefit, not only entrenches irresponsible parenting but also arbitrarily discriminates against responsible parents and deprives their children of the very income with which their parents feed, clothe, house, and educate them and thereby keep them physically and mentally healthy.  The Government has made no attempt to justify violating the most fundamental medical ethics: the requirement of informed consent and the right not to bear medical risk, which is unavoidable [HR2] in vaccination, for the benefit of another.

Talking point 2B: This punitive measure creates expectations of individual sacrifices that are outrageously out of keeping with community norms.

The argument that an individual must suffer risks in order to protect others is one that, taken seriously, would have outrageous consequences.  The proposal to take punitive measures to protect others from the decisions by the parents of healthy children to forgo inherently risky medical procedures makes no sense whatever if the Government does not equally penalise:

•parents who refuse to x-ray their foetuses;

•parents who allow their children to engage in physical-contact sports;

•alcoholics who may endanger others;

•farmers who refuse to “protect” their neighbours’ crops by spraying DDT on their own;

•all who frustrate counter-terrorism operations by putting curtains in their windows; and

•those who refuse to contribute to taxation by gambling and buying alcohol.

Talking point 2C: The proposed legislation violates several of the international human-rights instruments that the Human Rights Commission Act 1986 serves to protect.

The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 offers protection from interference even by well-meaning governments with the rights and freedoms enshrined in the following international instruments:

Several of these instruments safeguard parents’ rights to noninterference in their right to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, including the right to refuse vaccinations.  (The details of particular safeguards appear below.)

Talking point 2D: The proposed legislation seeks to subvert the genuine choices that lie at the heart of human rights.

The Australian Human Rights Commission states:

“Human rights… are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies.  They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives”.  [HR3]

Talking point 2E: The requirement for informed consent is enshrined in medical ethics, in human-rights instruments to which Australia is signatory, and in international law.

Informed consent is the basis of medial ethics as it is of liberal democracy.  An attack on informed consent is an attack on medical ethics, on fundamental liberties, and on human rights enshrined in international law.  (See talking points 2G to 2R for specific references to the laws applicable.)

Talking point 2F: The Australian Government itself acknowledges, on the Health Department’s web site, that legally valid consent can occur only “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation” [HR4].

Talking point 2G: The Australian Constitution s.51(xxiiiA) forbids Commonwealth provision of medical and dental services to require anybody to accept those services.

Justice Kirby declared that the Constitution (s.51[xxiiiA] HR6]) forbids the Australian Government from providing medical and dental services in such a way as to oblige parents to accept those services — an obligation that the Constitution and Kirby classify as “civil conscription” [HR6].

Talking point 2H: Imposing economic pressure to accept medical services through legislation is a form of practical compulsion that subverts legally valid consent.

Justice Aickin similarly declared, in relation to the Constitution’s proscription (at s.51[xxiiiA] [HR7]) upon providing medical services in such a way as to authorise civil conscription, that imposing economic pressure through legislation is a form of practical compulsion [HR8].  Such economic pressure, in penalising the option of non-consent, renders legally valid consent (see talking point 2F) impossible.

Talking point 2J: The proposed legislation and other recent legislation to penalize the unvaccinated systematically breach the right to privacy of medical information [HR5].

Talking point 2K: The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia [HR9], as well as section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution itself [HR7, HR6, HR8], of inalienable freedom of informed choice to refuse medical products and procedures.

Talking point 2L: The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia [HR10] guaranteeing freedom from arbitrary interference, exploitation, and violence.

Talking point 2M: The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia forbidding, in accordance with medical ethics, exploitation by forcible treatment of one person for the purported benefit of another.

Australian law acknowledges financial pressure to perform an act as a “practical compulsion” [HR8].  The proposed legislation, being specifically designed to apply such financial force to parents to vaccinate, therefore amounts to an attempt at forcible medical treatment for the benefit of others to the detriment of the treated, and violates various instruments [HR11] forbidding such exploitation.

Talking point 2N: Discrimination against children disabled by prior vaccinations would breach international law, as would differential access to child care on the basis of this disability.

Children injured by prior vaccinations commonly suffer long-term disabilities; discrimination against them on the basis of their parents’ or guardians’ recognition of their vulnerabilities therefore constitutes discrimination against the disabled.  The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia [HR12] guaranteeing freedom from discrimination against children and against the disabled.

Specifically, differential access to child care on the basis of this disability contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [HR17] Article 19(1) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child [HR21] Articles 18, 23(1)&(4), 26, 27, and 31.

The Federal Government is, by virtue of international law [HR 13], obliged to take all necessary steps to prevent the discrimination that the proposed legislation would enshrine.

Talking point 2P: Discrimination against children imputed to be carrying disease-causing microorganisms by virtue of their vaccination status (such an imputation being defined in law as a disability) would breach international law, as would differential access to child care on the basis of this disability.

Children who carry microorganisms liable to cause disease are, by legal definition [DC1], disabled.  Children imputed to be disabled are, by legal definition [DC1], disabled.

Therefore unvaccinated children imputed to be carrying disease-causing microorganisms by virtue of their vaccination status are, by legal definition, disabled children.

Discrimination against such children due to their parents’ or guardians’ practical recognition of their vulnerabilities therefore constitutes discrimination against the disabled, and contravenes various human-rights instruments in force in Australia [HR12] guaranteeing freedom from discrimination against children and discrimination against the disabled.

Specifically, differential access to child care on the basis of this disability contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [HR17] Article 19)1) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child [HR21] Articles 18, 23(1)&(4), 26, 27, and 31.

The Federal Government is, by virtue of international law [HR13], obliged to take all necessary steps to prevent the discrimination that the proposed legislation would enshrine.

Talking point 2Q: Various human-rights instruments in force in Australia oblige the Government to create protections against exploitation of and discrimination against children and the disabled such as the proposed legislation embodies [HR13].

Talking point 2R: The proposed legislation would violate inalienable human rights to refusal of medical goods and services, to freedom from arbitrary medical interference, to freedom from discrimination on a basis of differing beliefs, to freedom from discrimination against persons with disabilities, to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, to freedom from discrimination against children, to freedom from discrimination against the disabled, to freedom from exploitation of children, and to requirements of bioethical transparency, as enshrined:

•in the Australian Constitution, section 51 (xxiiiA) [HR7];

•in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5(1)&(3) [HR14];

•in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 1, 2, 7, 12, 18, 20, 22, 23(1)&(3), 25, 27(1), and 30 [HR15];

•in the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 16, and 18(1) [HR16];

•in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 1(3), 2, 5, 7, 17, 18, 24(1), 26, and 27 [HR17];

•in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 1, 2(2), 4, 5, 10(1&3), and 12(1)&(2)(a&c) [HR18];

•in the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, Articles 3(a–d,f,&h), 4(1)(a–d), (3), (4), & (5), 5(1)&(2), 7, 8, 9, 11, 12(2), 12(2)&(4), 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21(c & d), 22, 26(1), 28(1)&(2)(c), 30(2), and 30(5)(d) [HR19];

•in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Articles 2(2), 4, and 16(1) [HR20]; and

•in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 2, 3(1), 3(2), 5, 14, 15, 18, 23, 24(2)(c & e), 26, 27(1–3), 29(1)(b–e), 31, 32, 36, and 37(a) [HR21].

As well, the legislation clearly meets the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC) tests for at least two unethical state actions: (a) III.3.1, “Disrespect for the patient’s will”; and (b) III.3.2, “Professional self-interest” [HR22].

Talking point 2S: The proposed legislation can meet its putative intent only by violating the most fundamental medical ethic, which forbids exploitation by imposition of the risk of a medical procedure on one person for the sake of another.

Talking point 2T: “The freedom to make voluntary decisions about what you are willing to risk your life or the life of your child for is a human and civil right.

“It is a human right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to medical risk taking, including taking risks with pharmaceutical products like vaccines.”

—Barbara Loe Fisher, “NVIC calls for vaccine policy & law reform to protect human and civil rights”, National Vaccine Information Center 18 May 2014, <http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2014/NVIC-Calls-for-Vaccine-Policy—Law-Reform–To-Pro.aspx>.

Talking point 2U: “… every life is important and nobody deserves to be written off by a drug company or government agency as an expendable casualty of public health policy.”

—Barbara Loe Fisher, “Gardasil death & brain damage: a national tragedy”, http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/February-2009/Monday,-February-09,-2009-Gardasil-Death—Brain-D.aspx.

Talking point 2V: “According to Hippocratic tradition, the safety level of a preventive medicine must be very high, as it is aimed at protecting people against diseases that they may not contract.”

—Marc Girard, “Autoimmune hazards of hepatitis B vaccine”, Autoimmun Rev.  2005 Feb;4(2):96–100, <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568997204002010>.

Talking point 2W: Compromising free informed consent by imposing any of the vaccines on Australia’s childhood vaccination schedules, all experimental, contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.

Australian data on safety and effectiveness are created primarily through postmarket surveillance [HR24] (a primarily passive system relying upon physician reports and universally acknowledged to be 90% to 99% broken).  Postmarket surveillance is necessary because the vaccines remain experimental (see Topic 5): unproven in protectiveness, unproven in safety, and almost uninvestigated in long-term health outcomes [HR23].

Imposition of these experiments without free informed consent contravenes Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [HR17] and Article 15(1) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities [HR19].

REFERENCES

[HR1] <http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/rich-suburbs-have-low-immunisation-rates-research-shows-20140326-35iy3.html>.

[HR2] The United States 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act acknowledges that vaccine injury or death may be “unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and accompanied by proper directions and warnings” [42 U.S.C.  300aa-22(b)(1)].  The “unavoidable” language in the Act is from the Restatement (Second) of Torts that applies to “products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe” [Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A, comment k (1965)].

[HR3] <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/what-are-human-rights>.

[HR4] <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/content/Handbook10-home~handbook10part2~handbook10-2-1>.

[HR5] See [HR15] Article 12; [HR17] Article 17; and  [HR19] Article 22.

[HR6] Kirby J in Grain Pool (WA) v Commonwealth(2000) 202 CLR 479 at 523 and again in Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee (2009) 236 CLR 573 (the PSR case), as quoted on page 199 of Thomas Faunce, “CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION PRACTICALLY COMPELLING MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT: WONG v COMMONWEALTH; SELIM v PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE”, <https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/users/u9705219/236-lawrep-017-jlm-jl-0196.pdf>).

“The purpose of incorporating a prohibition on ‘civil conscription’ in the provision of such services is thus to preserve such a contractual relationship between the provider and the patient, at least to the extent that each might wish their relationship to be governed by such a contract.  In this sense, the prohibition is expressed for purposes of protection, including a protection extending to the patient.  It is designed to ensure the continuance in Australia of the individual provision of such services, as against their provision, say, entirely by a government-employed (or government-controlled) healthcare profession.

“… [T]he prohibition on ‘any form of civil conscription’ is designed to protect patients from having the supply of ‘medical and dental services’, otherwise than by private contract, forced upon them without their consent.”

[HR7] The Australian Constitution, section 51(xxiiiA), <http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx>, <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430>, or https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005>.

Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution states: “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to… The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances” (emphasis added).

[HR8] Aickin J in General Practitioners Society v Commonwealth (1980) 145 CLR 532 at 565–566, as quoted in Thomas Faunce, “COMMISSIONS OF AUDIT IN AUSTRALIA: HEALTH SYSTEM PRIVATISATION DIRECTIVES AND CIVIL CONSCRIPTION PROTECTIONS“, (2014) 21 JLM 561 at 569.

“Other forms of ‘practical compulsion’ are easy enough to imagine, particularly those which impose economic pressure such that it would be unreasonable to suppose that it could be resisted.  The imposition of such pressure by legislation would be just as effective as legal compulsion, and would, like legal compulsion, be a form of civil conscription.  To regard such practical compulsion as outside the restriction placed on this legislative power would be to turn what was obviously intended as a constitutional prohibition into an empty formula, a hollow mockery of its constitutional purpose.”

[HR9] See references [HR7]; [HR6]; [HR8]; [HR14] Article 1; [HR15] Articles 1, 12, 18; [HR16] Articles 5, 6, 8, 18; [HR17] Articles 1(3), 2, 5, 7, 18, 24, 27; [HR18] Articles 1, 4, 5; [HR19] Articles 3 (a–d, f, & h), 4(1)&(4), 12, 15; [HR20] Articles 2, 16; [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 14, 18, 36, 37(a).

[HR10] See references [HR15] Article 12; [HR16] Article 6; [HR17] Articles 1(3), 2, 5, 7, 18; [HR18] Articles 1, 4, 5; [HR19] Articles 4(1),(4),&(5), 16, 21; [HR20] Articles 2, 16; [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 32, 36, 37(a).

[HR11] See references [HR15] Article 12; [HR16] Articles 3(2), 4, 5, 6, 8, 11; [HR17] Articles 5, 7, 18, 24; [HR18] Articles 1, 4, 5; [HR19] Articles 3 (a–d, f, & h), 4(1),(4),&(5), 15; [HR20] Articles 2, 16; [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 14, 32, 36, 37(a).

[HR12] See references [HR14] Articles 2, 3, 4, 5; [HR15] Articles 1, 2, 7, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27; [HR16] Articles 3(1), 5, 8, 11, 16; [HR17] Articles 2, 5, 18, 24, 26, 27; [HR18] Articles 2, 4, 5, 10; [HR19] Articles 3 (a–d, f, & h), 4(1),(4),&(5), 5(1), 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30(1)(b)&(5)(c)&(d); [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 18, 23(1)&(4), 26, 27, 31, 32, 36.

[HR13] See references [HR14] Article 5(3); [HR15] Articles 7, 12; [HR16] Articles 5, 8; [HR17] Articles 2, 5, 17(2), 18(3), 24, 26; [HR18] Articles 4, 5, 10; [HR19] Articles 4(1),(3),(4),&(5), 5(2), 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15(2), 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30(1)(b)&(5)(c)&(d); [HR20] Article 4; [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 18, 23(2)&(3), 24(2)(c)&(e), 26, 27, 29, 31, 32.

[HR14] The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ReligionOrBelief.aspx>.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 1

1.  Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2.  No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice.

3.  Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 2

1.  No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or belief.

2.  For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.

Article 3

Discrimination between human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enunciated in detail in the International Covenants on Human Rights, and as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations.

Article 4

1.  All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.

2.  All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or belief in this matter.

Article 5

1.  The parents or, as the case may be, the legal guardians of the child have the right to organize the life within the family in accordance with their religion or belief and bearing in mind the moral education in which they believe the child should be brought up.

3.  The child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief.  He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.

[HR15] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr>.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.  Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.  All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.  All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[HR16] The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, <http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-human-rights>.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 3 — Human dignity and human rights

1.  Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.

2.  The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

Article 4 — Benefit and harm

In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, direct and indirect benefits to patients, research participants and other affected individuals should be maximized and any possible harm to such individuals should be minimized.

Article 5 — Autonomy and individual responsibility

The autonomy of persons to make decisions, while taking responsibility for those decisions and respecting the autonomy of others, is to be respected.  For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests.

Article 6 — Consent

1.  Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.  The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

2.  Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned.  The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent.  Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice.  Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.

3.  In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought.  In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

Article 8 — Respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity

In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account.  Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.

Article 11 — Non-discrimination and non-stigmatization

No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Article 16 — Protecting future generations

The impact of life sciences on future generations, including on their genetic constitution, should be given due regard.

Article 18 — Decision-making and addressing bioethical issues

1.  Professionalism, honesty, integrity and transparency in decision-making should be promoted, in particular declarations of all conflicts of interest and appropriate sharing of knowledge.  Every endeavour should be made to use the best available scientific knowledge and methodology in addressing and periodically reviewing bioethical issues.

Article 27 — Limitations on the application of the principles 

If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.  Any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.

[HR17] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx>.  Relevant Articles are:

PART I

Article 1

3.  The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

PART II

Article 2

1.  Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2.  Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3.  Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 5

1.  Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2.  There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

PART III

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Article 17

1.  No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18

1.  Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2.  No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3.  Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4.  The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Article 24

1.  Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.  In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 27

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

[HR18] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx>.  Relevant Articles are:

PART I

Article 1

1.  All peoples have the right of self-determination.  By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2.  All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.  In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3.  The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

PART II

Article 2

2.  The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 4

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 5

1.  Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein, or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2.  No restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any country in virtue of law, conventions, regulations or custom shall be admitted on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

PART III

Article 10

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that:

1.  The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children.  Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.

3.  Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children and young persons without any discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions.  Children and young persons should be protected from economic and social exploitation.  Their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law.  States should also set age limits below which the paid employment of child labour should be prohibited and punishable by law.

Article 12

1.  The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

2.  The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases.

[HR19] The Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, <http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml>.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 3 – General principles

The principles of the present Convention shall be:

a.Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;

b.Non-discrimination;

c.Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;

d.Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;

f.Accessibility;

h.Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

Article 4 – General obligations

1.  States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability.  To this end, States Parties undertake:

a.To adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention;

b.To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities;

c.To take into account the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities in all policies and programmes;

d.To refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the present Convention and to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in conformity with the present Convention;
3.  In the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the present Convention, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations.

4.  Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities and which may be contained in the law of a State Party or international law in force for that State.  There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Convention pursuant to law, conventions, regulation or custom on the pretext that the present Convention does not recognize such rights or freedoms or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

5.  The provisions of the present Convention shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions.

Article 5 – Equality and non-discrimination

1.  States Parties recognize that all persons are equal before and under the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law.

2.  States Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds.

Article 7 – Children with disabilities

1.  States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

2.  In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

3.  States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

Article 8 — Awareness-raising

1.  States Parties undertake to adopt immediate, effective and appropriate measures:

a.To raise awareness throughout society, including at the family level, regarding persons with disabilities, and to foster respect for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities;

b.To combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with disabilities, including those based on sex and age, in all areas of life;

c.To promote awareness of the capabilities and contributions of persons with disabilities.

Measures to this end include:

a.Initiating and maintaining effective public awareness campaigns designed:

i.To nurture receptiveness to the rights of persons with disabilities;

ii.To promote positive perceptions and greater social awareness towards persons with disabilities;

iii.To promote recognition of the skills, merits and abilities of persons with disabilities, and of their contributions to the workplace and the labour market;

b.Fostering at all levels of the education system, including in all children from an early age, an attitude of respect for the rights of persons with disabilities;

c.Encouraging all organs of the media to portray persons with disabilities in a manner consistent with the purpose of the present Convention;

d.Promoting awareness-training programmes regarding persons with disabilities and the rights of persons with disabilities.

Article 9 — Accessibility

1.  To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.  These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

a.Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces;

b.Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.

2.  States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:

a.Develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public;

b.Ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;

c.Provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities;

d.Provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy to read and understand forms;

e.Provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public;

f.Promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information;

g.Promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;

h.Promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.

Article 11 — Situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies

States Parties shall take, in accordance with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.

Article 12 — Equal recognition before the law

2.  States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life

4.  States Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law.  Such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person’s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body.  The safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person’s rights and interests.

Article 13 — Access to justice

1.  States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages.

2.  In order to help to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff.

Article 15 — Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

1.  No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  In particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

2.  States Parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 16 — Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse

1.  States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, educational and other measures to protect persons with disabilities, both within and outside the home, from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse, including their gender-based aspects.

2.  States Parties shall also take all appropriate measures to prevent all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse by ensuring, inter alia, appropriate forms of gender- and age-sensitive assistance and support for persons with disabilities and their families and caregivers, including through the provision of information and education on how to avoid, recognize and report instances of exploitation, violence and abuse.  States Parties shall ensure that protection services are age-, gender- and disability-sensitive.

3.  In order to prevent the occurrence of all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse, States Parties shall ensure that all facilities and programmes designed to serve persons with disabilities are effectively monitored by independent authorities.

4.  States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote the physical, cognitive and psychological recovery, rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons with disabilities who become victims of any form of exploitation, violence or abuse, including through the provision of protection services.  Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment that fosters the health, welfare, self-respect, dignity and autonomy of the person and takes into account gender- and age-specific needs.

5.  States Parties shall put in place effective legislation and policies, including women- and child-focused legislation and policies, to ensure that instances of exploitation, violence and abuse against persons with disabilities are identified, investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted.

Article 17 — Protecting the integrity of the person

Every person with disabilities has a right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity on an equal basis with others.

Article 19 — Living independently and being included in the community

States Parties to this Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community, including by ensuring that:

a.Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement;

b.Persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community;

c.Community services and facilities for the general population are available on an equal basis to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.

Article 21 — Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice, as defined in article 2 of the present Convention, including by:

c.Urging private entities that provide services to the general public, including through the Internet, to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats for persons with disabilities;

d.Encouraging the mass media, including providers of information through the Internet, to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities;

Article 22 — Respect for privacy

1.  No person with disabilities, regardless of place of residence or living arrangements, shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence or other types of communication or to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.  Persons with disabilities have the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

2.  States Parties shall protect the privacy of personal, health and rehabilitation information of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

Article 26 — Habilitation and rehabilitation

1.  States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures, including through peer support, to enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence, full physical, mental, social and vocational ability, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life.  To that end, States Parties shall organize, strengthen and extend comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation services and programmes, particularly in the areas of health, employment, education and social services, in such a way that these services and programmes:

a.Begin at the earliest possible stage, and are based on the multidisciplinary assessment of individual needs and strengths;

b.Support participation and inclusion in the community and all aspects of society, are voluntary, and are available to persons with disabilities as close as possible to their own communities, including in rural areas.

Article 28 — Adequate standard of living and social protection

1.  States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability.

2.  States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to social protection and to the enjoyment of that right without discrimination on the basis of disability, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right, including measures:

c.To ensure access by persons with disabilities and their families living in situations of poverty to assistance from the State with disability-related expenses, including adequate training, counselling, financial assistance and respite care;

Article 30 — Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport

5.  With a view to enabling persons with disabilities to participate on an equal basis with others in recreational, leisure and sporting activities, States Parties shall take appropriate measures:

d.To ensure that children with disabilities have equal access with other children to participation in play, recreation and leisure and sporting activities, including those activities in the school system.

[HR20] The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx>.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 2

1.  Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2.  No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 4

1.  Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.  The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2.  Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 10

1.  Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.

2.  Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such person.

Article 11

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities.  Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

Article 16

1.  Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.  In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

[HR21] The Convention on the Rights of the Child, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx>.  Relevant Articles are:

PART I

Article 2

1.  States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

2.  States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.

Article 3

1.  In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

2.  States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Article 5

States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

Article 14

1.  States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2.  States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

3.  Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 15

1.  States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.

2.  No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 18

1.  States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.  Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child.  The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.

2.  For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.

3.  States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible.

Article 23

1.  States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community.

2.  States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child’s condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child.

3.  Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development

4.  States Parties shall promote, in the spirit of international cooperation, the exchange of appropriate information in the field of preventive health care and of medical, psychological and functional treatment of disabled children, including dissemination of and access to information concerning methods of rehabilitation, education and vocational services, with the aim of enabling States Parties to improve their capabilities and skills and to widen their experience in these areas.  In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

Article 24

2.  States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:…

(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution; …

(e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents; …

Article 26

1.  States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.

2.  The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.

Article 27

1.  States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

2.  The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.

3.  States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

Article 29

1.  States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:…

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.

Article 31

1.  States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.

2.  States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.

Article 32

1.  States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

2.  States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article.  To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular:

(a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;

(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;

(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article.

Article 36

States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child’s welfare.

Article 37

States Parties shall ensure that:

(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

[HR22] The Principle of Respect for Human Vulnerability and Personal Integrity: Report of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC), Paris: UNESCO, 2013, <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002194/219494E.pdf>.  The report recommends, in respect of:

(a) III.3.1, Disrespect for the patient’s will (“The principle of informed consent is at risk whenever someone claims to know what is the right thing to do, and insists that his or her decision should prevail over the self-determination of the patient, whether that person is the physician or a family member”): that “Reinforcement of the need to protect an individual patient’s integrity, including specifically the importance of respecting the right to refuse treatment”.

(b) III.3.2, Professional self-interest: that “The creation and enforcement of safety controls for medicines and medical devices and insistence on independent ethical review of innovative treatments, including the use of medical devices”.

[HR23]

Universal acknowledgement of the dangers inherent in all vaccines, in combination with universal inability to predict and thus protect those individuals who will suffer the gravest injuries by their use, implies that the products are experimental.

Similarly, universal inability to predict and thus protect those individuals in whom the vaccine will fail to offer the protection that is its intended function; inability to predict the lifespan of any such protection in any individual; and total ignorance of the long-term health outcome of its use in any individual all imply that the product is experimental.

[HR24] This approach to safety of vaccines is tacitly confirmed in many places, e.g. <https://www.tga.gov.au/committee/advisory-committee-safety-vaccines-acsov>.

========================================

URGENT – Action Plan to Protect Your Rights

UrgentYesterday afternoon, the No Jab, No Pay legislation was introduced in Federal Parliament. Please note – it was introduced – not passed.

You can (and should) read the Bill here:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015

If we do nothing, this bill will pass. If we wait for someone else to take the actions needed, this bill will pass. If we think that once this Bill passes we can somehow get it rescinded, we are living in a fool’s paradise.

We need to act – and we need to act NOW!

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

Thanks to the excellent work of a delegation of individuals that included representatives from the AVN. The Senate will be convening an inquiry looking into No Jab No Pay. I have no terms of reference for this inquiry as of yet but will find this information shortly. In addition to sending the letters to your State and Federal representatives, everyone needs to put together a short submission, explaining why you are opposed to this legislation and it needs to be received by the committee no later than October 16th so time is very short! I will be putting some talking points and details up about this over the weekend but be prepared to do some writing in the very near future. We need hundreds of submissions in order to show the Senators that there is a real grass-roots interest in health freedom. Be ready!

Here are 5 things you can do today to help ensure that this bill will never be enacted:

1- Send out the My Will letter to your local MP and State Senators should you have them.

2- Do the same for your federal pollies.

3- Write to Malcolm Turnbull and tell him why you oppose No Jab No Pay. Use the info from the My Will letter or use your own words. If you have a vaccine injured child – send him a picture. Make sure you use the words – “it is my will” in there somewhere so a reply will be required.

4- Join the AVN. Honestly, this is a no-brainer. For $25 a year, you will be supporting an organisation that is supporting you. Now that I am no longer President or on the Committee, I can say this – if you are not a member of the AVN, you are really not looking to the future. If you really can’t afford the $25, I believe there is a way to get a sponsored membership (but only do this if there is a real need). Contact the AVN and ask them about it. Whatever you do, join the AVN today!

5- Share this information with everyone you know – your children’s and grandchildren’s future may very well depend on what you do today. So be strong – be forthright – and be vocal. 271 new vaccines are in the pipeline. You and your family are the targets. So step forward and own your decisions. You are not alone. You are loved, supported and part of a growing community of freedom-loving men and women – speak your truth.

That’s it – a handful of steps you can take to help your family and your country. Will you please do this today?

Love to you all,

Meryl

Testimony of Greg Beattie before QLD Parliamentary Inquiry

Meryl Dorey, Brett Smith, Tasha David and Greg Beattie at QLD Parliament

Below is the testimony that Greg Beattie, past President of the AVN, would have given had he not had his time unexpectedly shortened. If you would like to read the details of how the AVN was treated at this public inquiry at QLD Parliament, please click here to read the summary.

An interesting thing to note is that in the transcript of the hearing – and please remember that a transcript is supposed to be an exact record of what someone has said – someone either on the committee or employed by them changed the way in which Greg introduced himself. He said that he was a past President of the Australian Vaccination Network and the Transcript was changed to read, “I am a past president of what was then known as the Australian Vaccination Network…”

Someone there did not like Greg saying Australian Vaccination Network, though that WAS the name of the organisation previously, so they took it upon themselves to alter an official transcript!

Without further ado, here is Greg Beattie’s testimony:

I am a past president of the Australian Vaccination Network. I am also an author of two books on the issue. But I speak today as someone who, 20 years ago, challenged a government-run childcare centre that refused to accept my unvaccinated children. The very thing that this Bill promises to protect childcare centres from.

It can’t. This is the first point I’d like to make, and it’s a very important one so I’ll take a couple of minutes to explain. It would be extremely unfortunate if this Bill were to achieve the opposite of its intention, and invite childcare centres to do something which exposed them to, rather than protected them from, liability. But in my estimation, and that of the NSW government, that’s precisely what it will do.

NSW parliament debated an amendment identical to the Bill proposed here in 2013. It didn’t pass because the government recognised that it would expose childcare centres to challenge, and that that challenge would come via the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act – the same Act I used 20 years ago.

Advice from the attorney general confirmed that such a move would place childcare centres in breach of the Act, and that their state legislation was powerless to protect them from that. I’ll quote selectively from the Hansard record of that debate:

“The Government does not support the amendment…. Allowing childcare facilities to adopt their own policies …. is not supported by the childcare industry peak bodies. Public health experts, including the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, have strong objections to such an ad hoc approach.”

“…the proposed amendment would open childcare facilities …. to claims that the facility is in breach of the Commonwealth anti-discrimination law.”

And on the capacity of the NSW public health Act to protect childcare centres from this challenge:

“Exemptions under a Commonwealth or State law apply only to actions taken in direct compliance with a prescribed law. The New South Wales Public Health Act is not a prescribed law under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act.”

And in case you’re wondering, I’ve checked and the Queensland public health Act is also not a prescribed law.

So, in a nutshell, this Bill promises something it can’t provide. It invites childcare centres to make a decision, and promises to support them in that decision, but it cannot deliver on that promise.

Childcare centres WILL get challenges. They won’t come from me. My children have flown the coop. But there are 1000’s of others out there, ready and waiting. And if you want to meet some, come downtown on Sunday week. A rally against the proposed federal laws has been organised. The last one, a couple of months ago, was attended by several thousand. These are parents who are sick and tired of being pushed around, and are prepared to act.

The second point I’d like to make is that there is no imperative to legislate in this area.

Vaccination has not produced the tremendous benefits that its marketing machine would have us believe. It didn’t save us from the high death rates of the past. Measles deaths peaked in Australia at 175 per 100,000. A century later, when we were about to introduce a vaccine for it, that figure was down to 0.1. The deaths had declined by more than 99% before we started vaccinating for it.

Whooping cough similarly declined around 90%, and diphtheria about 80%, before we started vaccinating for them. But the marketing machine has given all the credit to vaccination. And most people have swallowed that.

Also, experts frequently claim that vaccination saves 3 million lives each year. But ask for the evidence of that and you’ll find they don’t have it. Just that so-and-so said so. And if you ask so-and-so they’ll tell you the same thing. If you’re persistent, and drill down to the source, you WILL find the answer:

“We modelled it on a spreadsheet. We started with the assumption that vaccination prevents 90-odd% of deaths. So we just added up all the vaccines given out and – there’s our figure.”

That figure is of course paraded as evidence of how well vaccination works. Which in turn appears to validate the assumption in the model. It’s called a feedback loop. There IS no empirical evidence. That’s vaccine science. And they wonder why people question it! But there are many more reasons people question it, as can be seen in our submission.

With my third and final point I’d like to make a recommendation to the committee. Given that this Bill will be counter productive, why don’t we try something new? Something daring. Discussion.

Last year a Healthy Lifestyles Expo was run on the Sunshine Coast. The organisers decided to include a short forum on vaccination, since the issue was topical at the time. They approached the state’s chief health officer, Dr Jeanette Young, who you heard from earlier today, as well as our organisation, to supply speakers for a debate. We accepted. Dr Young refused. Her reason – “there’s nothing to debate”. The organisers tried elsewhere, even publicising their request, but no one could be found to speak in support of vaccination.

Unfortunately this happens all the time. Ordinary citizens organise a forum so that the competing viewpoints can be aired publicly, but the pro side refuses to participate. They’ll only turn up if the so-called anti side isn’t allowed to speak. These are classic playground antics.

And who misses out? The public. Those who are trying to make sense of the opposing stories.

Dr Young should relish the opportunity to defend and promote vaccination. In fact, she should facilitate such forums.

This government can do something in this area. It could direct the health hierarchy to promote ongoing and open discussion. Have them encourage questions, concerns, and dissenting voices. Have them provide forums where the so-called anti side is actively INVITED to debate. Have them facilitate similar on-line discussions, as well. Show the community they’re not frightened of dissent. That they’re capable of having their claims publicly scrutinised.

And organisations such as ours should be welcomed, embraced, not demonised. We represent the concerns of the community. Engage us, and address the concerns publicly and cooperatively. Don’t ignore us, or bring a big stick out. That won’t chase us away. It will only galvanise us.

In this way the public will feel secure that the emerging information is robust.

For years our organisation has been subjected to almost every form of inquiry and government sanctioned intimidation you can think of. Why? Because we question vaccination. And we demand attention to our concerns. But we’ve prevailed. And we always will prevail because the reason for our existence is still there. Dissenting voices on vaccination are still being handled with playground antics.

This government, if it were to implement this sort of approach, could be a nation leader – in fact, a world leader – in resolving the divisiveness that this issue brings to our community.

A new Pro-Choice political party needs your help URGENTLY!

iStock_000011256677XSmallI am reposting this extremely important information here. Please everyone, read, share and consider! I have just joined this party this morning (was previously a member of the Greens – HAH! With di Natale as head, that party is now nothing more than a pro-pharma joke!). If you believe in freedom of choice in Australia; if you believe in justice for Australians, consider joining this party too and do it soon because they MUST get 700 more members by Monday. The septics are out to shut them down – let’s show them that our voices count! Read and share, read and share!

Thanks,

Meryl

URGENT!

As you all know I have been telling you about Jeff Hodges from the Consumer Rights and No Tolls political party.
Unfortunately the anti-choice community have decided that he should be silenced and have put in a complaint to try and get his website domain taken away. He now has until Monday to get 700 members to register as a national party.
This assault on anyone who dares question the status quo needs to stop, it is unnecessary and ridiculous. Please join me and showing them that we are sick of being pushed around and let’s get some politicians in parliament that will be our voice!
Jeff’s party has been running since 2012/13 and are getting close to having enough members to register with the electoral commission, if any of you can support his party please check out his website http://www.consumerrights.org.au/ and register.
He needs your name, address and birth date, if you are already a member of another party you have the option to join his party and take your allegiance over to Consumer Rights and No Tolls party it is your right and your choice.
It is free to join and if you feel like changing your mind later on you can do that too, but let’s get Jeff’s party up and running and let the cyber bullies know enough is enough!

“Hello, I am Jeffrey Hodges, Founder and secretary of the new Consumer Rights & No Tolls party, and we really need your help please.

We want to stand at the next election for consumer rights issues, and we stand strongly beside you in regards the rights of people to refuse vaccinations and not be discriminated against. We will do whatever we can when elected to repeal the discriminatory ‘No jab, No pay’ legislation which both the ALP and LNP support.

However, to become a registered party we need at least 700 foundation members – and we need you to provide your full name, date of birth and residential address as per the electoral roll.

There is no cost – membership is totally free – and there is no obligation for you to be involved in any way. You would just be helping us ‘have a go’ and stand against ‘No jab, No pay’ and other important consumer rights issues. Please have a look at our website and join us if you agree with what we stand for.
You can join online at www.consumerrights.org.au

There is an urgency in this as we are wanting to register the party next week – so please, please, join us by the weekend!
If you have any questions, you can call me personally on 07 5445 7994.

Thanks for your help.
Thanks!
Jeffrey”
www.consumerrights.org.au
CONSUMERRIGHTS.ORG.AU

If you do nothing else today, please watch and share this video of Lissa Weckert speaking at the No Jab, No Pay rally in Brisbane on June 21, 2015. There is another march scheduled for September this year. Please be sure to subscribe to this blog as we will keep you informed of all future actions to protect health rights and prevent compulsory vaccination.

Are those who want to mandate vaccines completely clueless?

by Meryl Dorey

Anti-choice campaigner, Alison Gaylard
Anti-choice campaigner, Alison Gaylard

My local newspaper, The Northern Star, ran the following article regarding the proposed punishments of law-abiding Australians trying to make informed choices for the protection of their children. These parents — the majority of whom are (according to numerous Australian government studies) highly educated and well-researched on this subject — believe that:

1- Vaccines carry serious risks including the risk of lifelong disability or death. 

2- Vaccines are not as effective as doctors have claimed them to be.

3- Healthy unvaccinated children do not carry or transmit diseases to others, though their vaccinated counterparts do (e.g. those who have received live virus vaccines and those who have been vaccinated against pertussis (whooping cough), who recent studies show may be more likely to infect others with the illness)

4- In a democratic nation such as Australia, that is a signatory to the Nuremburg Code, personal informed choice is sacrosanct and must never be abridged in any way.

Many of you may not know this, but the AVN was instrumental in the lobbying efforts to introduce a conscientious objector clause into Federal legislation so that a generation of parents between then (the late 1990s) and now was able to access all government benefits. Now, moves are afoot to wipe out our hard work on your behalf.

Below are my responses to this article (the original article is in block quotes below). I would love to hear your feedback on what you are willing to do to protect your rights. Please suggest ideas (visits to politicians, protest marches, letters, petitions, etc.), and let me know whether you would be prepared to be one of those who takes action against these tyrannical moves by our pharma-controlled government, by clicking here to send me an email with your contact details and ideas.

Vaccination supporters welcome government crack down

Luke Mortimer

Northern Star

11 April, 2015

NORTHERN Rivers Vaccination Supporters has welcomed moves by the Federal Government to crack down on parents avoiding vaccinating their children.

Well, this is no surprise! The Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters is a small group of people involved with Stop the AVN (SAVN). They have always favoured compulsory vaccination. I would be very surprised if they were ever quoted as being supportive of health rights or the right to freedom of choice or speech. That is not their way.

ALISON GAYLARD: Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And science is factual.

No, Alison; I’m sorry to have to tell you that science is neither factual nor wrong. Science is a process by which hypotheses are tested. And there are few hard and fast rules in science. Some examples of indisputable facts are: yes, the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west; yes, living things respire, reproduce, and die. Scientific conclusions are, by their very nature, open to debate, interpretation, and testing. That process is what we call science.

In recent days, Social Services Minister Scott Morrison confirmed to media outlets the government was reviewing ambiguous legislation that allowed parents to object to immunisations for personal or philosophical reasons.

It’s strange that Minister Morrison describes this legislation as ‘ambiguous’. It is anything but. The legislation describes exactly how those who object to getting their children vaccinated can still access government entitlements. And the important word there is ‘entitlements’ — because these are things that ALL citizens and residents of Australia are entitled to. Our Federal Government is signatory to many international treaties and codes that enshrine our right to make free, informed health choices.

In fact, the Australian Medical Association (AMA), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC), and various other government and medical industry bodies all state — quite unambiguously — that they support this right and that it is one of their core values.

So is Minister Morrison unaware of these facts? Or was he elected into public office to protect a multi-trillion-dollar international business model (that of Big Pharma) instead of the rights and needs of his constituents?

Mullumbimby’s Alison Gaylard, a founding member of Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters, hoped the review would go some way towards improving the North Coast’s immunisation rates, which were the worst in the country in 2014.

The vaccination rates may or may not be “the worst in the country”, but no matter how bad they are, they are still orders of magnitude higher than they were in 1991, when our rate of infectious diseases such as whooping cough was far lower than it is today. So we have had an overall increase in vaccination rates along with a concomitant increase in disease. How, then, is it possible to blame the unvaccinated? And yet, read on and see that Ms Gaylard does just that!

Ms Gaylard helped start the group after her two daughters became ill with whooping cough.

Please note that both Ms Gaylard’s daughters had been vaccinated against whooping cough. Read that again: they had been vaccinated. The vaccine failed them both. But Ms Gaylard, rather than face up to the known ineffectiveness of the vaccine (not conjecture on my part: many, many studies have and still do demonstrate that the vaccinated may be unprotected), Ms Gaylard blames some nameless, faceless unvaccinated people for the failure of the vaccine to protect her children.

If I go out for a drive today and run into a light pole, I have as much right blame the full moon or the orange juice I had for breakfast as Ms Gaylard has to blame the unvaccinated for the failure of a vaccine. In fact, I would go further and state that placing the blame on the unvaccinated is not only unscientific and without any evidence; it is plain dumb.

We have a high number of conscientious objectors in this area, especially in Mullumbimby. I think it will (improve immunisation rates),” she said.

Well, no doubt there are some families who will vaccinate their children because they rely on government payments to put food on the table, a roof over their head, and clothes on their children’s backs. It is those least able to afford these financial penalties who are being targeted and who will be most likely to make the decision to vaccinate purely for financial reasons. Do we really want to live in a society in which people are forced to give their children medical procedures that — let’s face it — have real and (in some cases) quantifiable risks, against the informed choice of those who love them most, their parents? In my case, the answer is, no: I do not want to live in such a society. It is immoral, unethical, undemocratic, and just plain wrong. If there is a risk, there must always be a choice.

We have a high number of people who’ve bought into the anti-vaccination stance, so as to whether they’ll be concerned about whether they’ll lose childcare benefits or facilities, I’m unsure how it’ll impact here. We’ll be watching with interest. Our demographic here is so diverse.”

Those who have “bought into the anti-vaccination stance” — which is how Ms Gaylard and her ilk characterise anybody who doesn’t buy into their peculiar brand of magical thinking — have generally made their choice after:

1- having a child who was injured or killed by a vaccine or vaccines;

2- knowing someone who was injured or killed by a vaccine or vaccines; and/or

3- spending many hours (commonly in the hundreds or thousands of hours) researching this issue for themselves.

After all, it is so easy to say yes to vaccination; it is far harder to say no in today’s society. So that decision must be respected by a government that is truly representative of its citizen’s rights.

Ms Gaylard said there was indisputable evidence regarding immunisation’s benefits.

I would welcome Ms Gaylard’s providing such “indisputable evidence” of vaccination’s benefits. Calling vaccinations immunisations is the first clue that Ms Gaylard has no idea what she is talking about since even immunologists and paediatricians admit that vaccines don’t immunise and therefore, the words cannot truthfully be used interchangeably.

If Ms Gaylard is a woman of her word, I would like to challenge her to a public debate on this issue. Since she is so sure she has this “indisputable evidence”, let her present it in a fair and open forum to allow those in attendance to hear and see it and decide that for themselves.

If she feels that she is not qualified to present the facts behind the benefits and safety of vaccination, she is more than welcome to find a medical professional, government health official, or anyone else to take her place.

Come to the party, Alison. If you really are firm in your convictions, support them with the evidence.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Utah mother of five left isolated, bullied and threatened by community after not vaccinating child | Daily Mail Online

Utah CoupleA Utah mother-of-five has been isolated in her community after receiving threats for not vaccinating her child.

During the national debate over measles and vaccines, Ursula Porter, of Salt Lake City, and her husband made it public that one of her kids has not been vaccinated.

She said that four of her five children, aged two to nine years old, had been vaccinated and three of them suffered severe reactions. 

Utah mother of five left isolated, bullied and threatened by community after not vaccinating child | Daily Mail Online.

Why vaccinations are a religion

Forced vaccination is unconstitutional

by Rixta Francis

899696_sThe self-proclaimed (and generally accepted) gold standard of the pharmaceutical industry is the double-blind,  placebo-controlled study (a placebo being a neutral, ineffective substance; in the case of vaccinations, a saline solution). There is a lot wrong with this gold standard, but let’s just accept that it is the standard that a drug’s claims to effectiveness and safety are expected to meet. Without positive studies like this, drugs will rarely be accepted by the government regulators.

Vaccines are drugs, and they are made by the pharmaceutical industry. But they are the exception to the rule, for the abovementioned gold standard is NOT applied to vaccines. There is no double-blind, placebo-controlled study that shows that vaccines are either safe or effective, let alone a study that shows the effects of multiple vaccines given, as is common practice, simultaneously. Those studies simply are not done. The reason the pharmaceutical industry gives for that is that it would be unethical to withhold a vaccine from the children in the placebo group. It seems to bother nobody that this means that children (and adults) are injected with drugs that have in no way been proven to be either safe or effective.

Vaccine efficacy is fatally flawed as a substitute for vaccine effectiveness. A vaccine’s efficacy is measured by the proportion of vaccinees developing a certain concentration of antibodies, a concentration believed to be protective. But scientists have already known for three decades that antibodies do NOT equal immunity. The only way to measure vaccine efficacy in a lab is completely useless for measuring its effectiveness in an epidemic. But that too seems to bother nobody; in lieu of its effectiveness at protection, the drug’s efficacy in antibody production is still used universally to sell it.

Those who try to impose their beliefs on others, we call zealots.

The reason people don’t care about these facts is that they have such a strong BELIEF in these shots that it doesn’t seem to matter whether there is any evidence of safety or efficacy. But anyone can believe anything; that doesn’t mean it’s true. And it doesn’t matter either that most doctors believe in it and that many people believe their doctors. There are some 1.5 billion people who believe in Jesus, some 800 million who believe in Allah, some 800 million who believe in Shiva. That’s considerably more than the number of doctors who believe in vaccinations. Still everyone agrees that these are religions and not science. So ‘everyone believes it’ doesn’t make a belief anything more than a belief.

Our freedom NOT to practice the religion of vaccination

The Australian constitution grants us freedom of religion. Section 116 of the constitution says:

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

It’s clear: the Australian constitution prohibits forcing any kind of religious practice onto anybody else. That prohibition includes government discrimination that is based in any way on submission or non-submission to any religion or religious practice.

This implies that nobody can be denied government payments or a job or anything else solely based on refusal to submit to the religious practice of vaccination. If the government, an employer, or anybody else is to implement discrimination on the basis of vaccination, then it will have to show clear, indisputable proof that the vaccine’s claimed safety and efficacy are based on science and not on beliefs. The burden of proof is not on those who refuse to accept those beliefs; it’s solely on those who want to force others to submit to them.

If the government (or anybody else) denies Australian citizens the FULL freedom to accept or reject vaccinations for themselves or their children, then it does so in contravention of the constitution. And that means the end of Australia as a democracy.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.