This is stupid and honestly Change.org should stop this sort of nonsense. Simon Shields should be ashamed of himself.
Here’s the text with links removed;
It is the emphatic collective WILL of all those that have signed this petition that the AUSTRALIAN VICTORIAN STATE GOVERNMENT’S NO JAB NO PLAY Legislation needs to be either abolished or amended to provide for an exemption for conscientious objection to the immunization requirement on philosophical or religious grounds, in accordance with the obligations imposed by Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, other human rights instruments to which Australia is a party, and to eliminate conflict between this Bill and the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act. A statutory declaration made by a child’s parents or legal guardians to the effect they have a conscientious objection to immunisation on philosophical or religious grounds should be sufficient to satisfy the immunisation requirement due to the difficulties in obtaining a signed objection form from a doctor.
No it should not, because all philosophy that is educated and thought out properly points towards vaccination and not against it. There is no religion that opposes vaccines. So the Charter doesn’t apply. There is no conflict between this policy and the DDA and the same applies to the other Act.
THE NO JAB NO PLAY Victorian Legislation exceeds the power of Parliament which extends to making exclusions in outbreak conditions only. This legislation conflicts with sections 5 & 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992 and section 6 of the New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act (FFA) 1999. Refusal to allow a child to enroll in child care because of vaccination status amounts to unlawful discrimination under the DDA, and exposes child care centres to legal liability for acts of unlawful discrimination. In the DDA unvaccinated children are considered disabled and are thus protected from discrimination as disabled people. Section 48 of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act dealing with discrimination against those with an infectious disease will not hold up in court as it would be difficult to prove refusing to enrol an unvaccinated child in child care on the basis the child may catch a disease in the future is reasonably necessary to protect public health.
Section 29A of the DDA provides for unjustifiable hardship. Allowing unvaccinated children into a child care facility presents a severe health threat to the facility and would therefore be an exemption to the claimed discrimination. Therefore the application of Section 48 would end up being a side attraction at best.
The Legislation conflicts with the FFA by denying a benefit conferred by that Act, namely the right to access subsidised childcare services (child care benefits). While eligibility to child care benefits under the FAA is subject to an immunisation requirement, exemptions from this requirement is permitted on the grounds of conscientious objection.
Not any more, because it is a health hazard that over rules any part of this law.
The Legislation conflicts with section 3.5 of Australia’s Medical Board Code of Conduct which says a person must be properly informed and be allowed to make a voluntary decision about whether they adopt any proposed medical care (Subsection 2 requires that a doctor obtains informed consent prior to providing a treatment), by coercing their decision with the threat of removing child care, which will threaten the parents ability to participate in work.
The part after the bracketed section is not relevant to the Medical Code of Conduct because the parent can still make that decision. It’s the wrong decision that has penalties outside of the doctor’s influence.
Professor Raina Macintyre recently expressed the concern that doctors were prevented from accepting consent under such circumstances in relation to a proposed immunisation requirement in Commonwealth laws.
“In addition, doctors must obtain valid consent to vaccinate children, and consent is not valid in the presence of any form of coercion.”
This obviously raises questions about the legal validity of the Bill particularly in the absence of provision for immunisation exemptions on conscientious grounds.
No it doesn’t, because the choice still lies with the parent. At worst, the doctor can advise that vaccines are safe and that any concerns are not valid. Advise – not coerce. If a parent chooses not to listen to medical advice from their doctor, that’s not the doctor’s fault.
This Bill violates Section 8, subsections 2 and 3 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (CHRR) which protects the right of every person to enjoy their human rights free of discrimination, and to equal and effective protection from discrimination by the law.
As previously mentioned, there is no discrimination because the unjustifiable hardship clause over rides the claim.
If deliberately unvaccinated children are claimed to pose a risk to the other children and staff, then by necessity, similarly unprotected children and people must also pose the same risk. These include:
(a) those who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons; and
(b) those who are too young to have been vaccinated; and
(c) those who have been vaccinated, but who are not protected due to not producing the required biological response claimed to confer immunity; and
(d) those who were not vaccinated in utero; and
(e) child care centre employees.
If unvaccinated children are alleged to pose a risk to others then surely children receiving live virus vaccines would also pose a risk, but the Bill does not discriminate against these children on such a basis. Only deliberately unvaccinated children are singled out for exclusion.
No they don’t because the numbers above are limited. Child care centre employees are required to be vaccinated or i they aren’t they should be. That’s a decision for the centres concerned. The others don’t pose a risk as loing as herd immunity has been achieved. Those who are deliberately unvaccinated threaten that herd immunity wheres the others mentioned above do not on their own.
Section 10, subsection c, of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (CHRR) protects the right to give free and full consent to a medical treatment. The immunisation requirement of this Bill will limit this right.
The section refers to experimentation and nothing else so this is irrelevant.
Vaccination like all medical procedures, carries with it the risk of death, disability and chronic disease. The tragic examples of Saba Button, Lachlan Neylan, Izzy Olesen and Ashley Epapara are cases in point. Both Saba Button and Lachlan Neylan suffered major brain injuries resulting in severe and permanent disability from the vaccinations they received. Izzy Olesen suffered Stevens Johnson Syndrome resulting in blindness and major skin scarring, and regrettably, Ashley Epapara died.
This is where I’m leaving out the links.
Let’s review Saba Button first. This was related to the bad batch of Fluvax that hit Western Australia. This is not the fault of the vaccine itself. It was the fault of the manufacturer. It was quickly recalled and the matter dealt with appropriately. These people trying to use this as an excuse not to vaccinate are scaremongering without the full information.
Lachlan Neylan was the victim of some fool who didn’t make sure the right vaccine was administered. Again, this is not the fault of the vaccine. This was a system failure and should not be used as an excuse not to vaccinate.
Izzy Olesen’s story comes from an unreliable source – the VINE website. Let’s see an independent story with all the facts instead of an emotional mother unwilling to get the incident properly investigated.
Ashley Epapara’s death has not been defined, so for anyone to scream the admission that the flu vaccine can’t be ruled out in causation is an admission that it was responsible is just plain irresponsible. Not only that, the version was withdrawn upon the death and at the time of the article hadn’t been re-circulated. That indicates at worst another system failure and not the vaccine itself yet again.
Importantly, unlike a medical procedure performed on a sick or injured person for therapeutic goals, vaccination is a medical procedure performed on healthy people for a potential future benefit. For this reason, the standard of informed consent to the procedure should be arguably higher than that for a therapeutic purpose, and most definitely should only be given freely, without coercion.
Any child who is not vaccinated is not healthy because they are not protected from preventable disease, just to kill that argument. This isn’t about “potential” future benefit. It is about “actual” PRESENT (and future) benefit. Fully informed and without the garbage that is being spread, every parent will choose to vaccinate without hesitation.
Again it is the emphatic collective WILL of all those that have signed this petition that this Legislation needs to be abolished or amended to provide for an exemption for conscientious objection to the immunisation requirement on philosophical or religious grounds, in accordance with the obligations imposed by Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, other human rights instruments to which Australia is a party, and to eliminate conflict between this Bill and the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act. A statutory declaration made by a child’s parents or legal guardians to the effect they have a conscientious objection to immunisation on philosophical or religious grounds should be sufficient to satisfy the immunisation requirement due to the difficulties in obtaining a signed objection form from a doctor.
It is the emphatic will of the majority of Australians that those who sign the petition are child neglectors who refuse to do all they can to protect their children from preventable disease. If one doesn’t vaccinate their children, they are failing in that responsibility. The petition is garbage and an invitation to cause more deaths from diseases in Australia’s future generations.