This entry is a continuation of the nonsense documentation by Rukaya Kendall, who by the way appeared to have left Facebook – either voluntarily or thrown off by FB. But as I upload this the idiot is back. This is about the second document mentioned in the previous entry;
(The red parts are to be subbed)
Let’s break this down as well, and this is going to take awhile because it is a four page document (the previous one was just one page).
1. The first bolded part is primarily a lie. There are no mandatory, forced or coerced vaccines. The idea of ceasing recommendations is insulting, as vaccines are held to prevent the diseases they are designed for.
2. Courts can not provide any of the requested documents without a case to be answered in the first place. This is an example of Kendall assuming that this document is a court order when it’s not. Any reference to the courts as a result are irrelevant and not applicable.
3. We then come to the dots points;
a. All laws passed by the Australian Parliament do not require court verification at all. The only restriction is that provided by the Constitution. Section 51 provides for all aspects that the Parliament has the power to do. Section 51 (xxvi) specifies the power to makes laws for “the people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. That includes laws made to protect children and the elderly from preventable disease. Again though, there are no mandates. The bill was the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Act 2015 which amended A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999. Also, it would seem with the mention of recommendations that Kendall is seeking all legislation relating to vaccines. Recommendations are not legislated. They are inherently voluntary. Not only that, before 1946 this was something that state governments handled. And still do – which is where No Jab No Play eminates from.
b. The second dot point also doesn’t require legislation for the same reason. There are no mandates. If you choose not to vaccinate you can still lead a normal life. You can still get a job. The options are just slightly limited, that’s all. You can look after your aging parents or grandparents yourself so no need to access an aged care facility. You can play sport on your own (golf is a great example of that), and there are one on one options for the kids as well.
c. When one intentionally violates the rights of the child to live free from preventable disease. That is the ruling right here that Kendall has no respect for at all. Community measures that are associated with this include reporting such conduct. Kendall in effect is seeking to use privacy provisions to hide child neglect – including neglect like that of the two young Autistic men in Queensland recently, as well as children who have died at the hands of violent parents. That is despicable and worthy of contempt.
d. There is no mandatory vaccination so this dot point is based on a lie.
e. There is no torture, there is no cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, there is no experimentation and please note that anyone who opposes vaccines is not fully informed, and families who fail to provide protection from preventable disease lose the right to be protected as a family. The application of the Racial Discrimination Act is insulting and the note about children actually goes against Kendall’s case and not for it.
f. As already stated, there is no experimentation.
g. There is no inconsistency between federal law and state law in this instance. Nothing was named here which doesn’t help the cause.
h. The list of ingredients is irrelevant. Vaccines are a man made compound in which the ingredients lose their identity. That is basic high school science. The list on inserts is a legal statement and not valid medically. There are natural compounds that – if you showed the ingredients – would scare people. The ingredients of fresh water are liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen – both poisonous. The ingredients for natural salt are sodium and chlorine – both poisonous. Need I say more?
4. The list of side effects to the flu vaccine are mostly rare and/or unproven. This list is alarmist and worth ignoring.
5. There is another set of dot points next;
a. C0588/2020 in the UK High Court can’t be found online so I can’t comment without more detail.
b. The assertion made here is totally false. Authority is held over any man, woman or child, persons or entities who are unable to make rational decisions by themselves.
c. Double blind inert placebo safety testing is not valid due to the inherently exponential nature of the results making them unusable and therefore not ethical.
d. Two words – herd immunity.
e. Anyone’s insurance details are properly and rightly protected by privacy law. Any “injury” must firstly be medically verified anyway, and no anti vaccine proponent to my knowledge has ever been willing to do that so any claim fails anyway.
f. I’ll explain it. The Vaccine Court in the US pays out on probability and not solid proof, and it also pays out in protection of doctors who failed to administer the vaccine correctly. If the proper court rules of proof were applied and doctors were held liable for their malpractice, the payout amount would be $0.
g. Australia has not signed to the Nuremberg Code and neither has any other country so this part is totally irrelevant. Aside from the fact that – again – there is no force, coercion or mandating.
h. The assertion that the May 1, 2020 flu vaccine is experimental in any way is a lie.
i. Again – as the vaccine is NOT experimental this does not apply.
j. How on Earth are the rules re vaccines a denial of Political Liberty? Anti vaccine proponents are free to run for public office and have tried (and failed through no one’s fault but their own) so this is a ridiculous proposition.
k. A Minister of the Crown takes advice from appropriately qualified individuals. As an example, Greg Hunt has taken advice from the Federal Chief Medical Officer. He passes on this advice as is not only his right, but his job. The state Ministers carry out their duties in the same way.
l. Finally, the requirement stated in this document is not a legal requirement and can be (and I assume will be) ignored.
The last part is a threat to take legal action. Kendall is free to do so. There have been no losses, damages, costs or disbursements that would hold up in court to the extent that an application of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (New South Wales) would be more than appropriate. If you do proceed, Kendall, I will do my best to ensure that such an application is made, prosecuted and applied against you.
You have no idea.
And one more thing.