Demonstrations against COVID-19 restrictions, mandatory vaccination, lockdowns, and border restrictions have occurred in most capital cities of Australia.
Article by Gabriël Moens from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.
In Melbourne, demonstrations turned violent when construction workers marched against the prolonged lockdown.
Thousands of protesters assembled on Nov. 6, 2021, to protest the vaccine mandates of the Victorian government and its controversial Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021, which would give the Premier unprecedented power to rule by decree.
In a thoughtful article, Civil Disobedience in Times of Pandemic: Clarifying Rights and Duties, authors Yoann Della Croce and Ophelia Nicole-Berva argue that demonstrations do not qualify as “civil disobedience” because the present COVID-19 restrictions are “limited in time,” and people will eventually recover their civil rights.
These authors may well be correct, but not for the reasons given in their article.
This is because the protests have failed to change the state’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic, and, as such, they are demonstrably ineffective. It could be argued that ineffective protests do not qualify as “civil disobedience.”
“Civil disobedience” is a deliberate breach of a valid law, regulation, or order on the ground that it violates a “higher” principle, for example, a moral or religious principle.
Even disregarding the claim that COVID-19 health orders lack parliamentary oversight and involve rulemaking by the executive, they are validly enacted orders.
However, in the context of the pandemic, protesters may claim that these orders abrogate higher principles, including human and civil rights, which exist independently of the legal system and are non-derogable.
A non-derogable right is one whose infringement is not justified under any circumstances. It is generally considered that right to life and freedom from torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment fall into this category.
In contrast, the authors of the article argue that, over time, people will recover these rights, imply that the state confers these rights on people and that the state can also suspend or repeal these rights to protect public health.
On this line of argument, these rights do not exist prior to the establishment of civil society, and they do not constitute “natural” rights.
Professor Carl Cohen makes a distinction between direct and indirect forms of civil disobedience.
In a COVID-19 context, direct disobedience involves a breach of the valid health order, which protestors deem to be incompatible with “higher principles.” Indirect disobedience consists of the violation of a law or regulation that is not (or is only indirectly or remotely) related to the object of the protest.
The Melbourne COVID-19 protests fall into either category because a vaccination refusal involves a direct violation of the vaccination mandate, whereas the desecration of the Shrine of Remembrance may be an example of an indirect form of disobedience.
It is problematic to characterise the Melbourne protests as examples of “civil disobedience.” This is because these protests are ineffective and their impact on society is negligible, and they do not result in desired change.
Behaviour that directly targets the object of protest—for example, a vaccination mandate—is likely to be more effective than that which is only indirectly, or even remotely, connected to the impugned health order.
The demonstrators’ willingness to accept the penalty imposed for breaching a valid health order may also affect the effectiveness of a protest.
In accepting the penalties for their behaviour, demonstrators show their support for the state’s existing legal system, and, at the same time, they express their disagreement with the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The effectiveness of protests and their concomitant characterisation as “civil disobedience” also depends on the extent to which they are proportionate to the achievement of the demonstrators’ objective of changing the state’s COVID-19 narrative.
The violence surrounding the Melbourne protests raises the question of whether the behaviour of demonstrators should be non-violent to qualify as an act of “civil disobedience.”
Although, in most cases, protests should be non-violent in nature, there may well be instances of societal injustice that only violent protests could remedy.
To evaluate the effectiveness of a demonstration, it may also be necessary to consider the ability of demonstrators to analyse the nature and consequences of states’s COVID-19 strategy.
In 2008, journalist George Roberts commented on a disturbing ABC report according to which half Australia’s population cannot read or write properly.
Thirteen years later, there is anecdotal evidence that this percentage could well be higher because “reading” and “writing” are flexible concepts, and our education system, which is highly politicised and regulated, now promotes political correctness rather than the three “Rs”—reading, writing, and arithmetic.
According to journalist Adam Carey in The Age, four out of five teachers considered leaving the teaching profession during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This is relevant because people who cannot read and write properly may find it challenging to evaluate the purpose and consequences of their behaviour and, hence, may either obediently and slavishly accept the state’s health orders or participate in the rebellious activity, which is only an ineffective answer to a real problem.
The Melbourne demonstrations are ineffective in stemming and reversing the tide of bureaucratic health decision-making and, therefore, they may not constitute instances of civil disobedience.
Nevertheless, the germs of rebellious behaviour are sown when the normal channels of social change do not function properly, or when serious grievances are not heard.
A system does not function optimally when preferred groups have entrenched power positions in society and use their power to impose their will on weaker or vulnerable classes of people.
The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to the development of a two-tier Australian society where a powerful health bureaucracy has been able to impose its will on weaker and less powerful sections of the society.
Even when the COVID-19 pandemic is over—and this may take a long time—Australia will have changed irretrievably.
The civil rights of Australians will from now on always depend on the largesse of a magnanimous government bureaucracy that could easily take them away at the slightest provocation, especially in the field of health.
Hence, a confident assertion that health orders are only time-constrained nuisances and that people will recover their civil rights may be an optimistic expectation or an injudicious interpretation of the nature of the COVID-19 health orders.
Big Pharma’s Five Major Minions that Everyone, Vaxxed or Unvaxxed, Must Oppose
This is not an “anti-vaxxer” article, per se. It’s a call for everyone to wake up to the nefarious motives behind vaccine mandates, booster shots, and condemnation of freedom.
The worst kept secret in world history SHOULD be that the unquenchable push for universal vaccinations against Covid-19 has little if anything to do with healthcare and everything to do with Big Pharma’s influence over the narrative. Unfortunately, that secret has stayed firmly hidden from the vast majority of people because of the five major minions working on behalf of Big Pharma.
What’s even worse is the fact that Big Pharma’s greed is merely a smokescreen to hide an even darker secret. We’ll tackle that later. First, let’s look at the public-facing ringleaders behind the vaccine push, namely Big Pharma. But before we get into their five major minions, it’s important to understand one thing. This is NOT just an article that speaks to the unvaccinated. Even those who believe in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines must be made aware of agenda that’s at play.
Let’s start with some facts. The unvaccinated do NOT spread Covid-19 more rampantly than the vaccinated. Even Anthony Fauci acknowledged the viral load present in vaccinated people is just as high as in the unvaccinated. This fact alone should demolish the vaccine mandates as it demonstrates they have absolutely no effect on the spread of the disease. But wait! There’s definitely more.
This unhinged push to vaccinate everyone defies science. Those with natural immunity may actually have their stronger defenses against Covid-19 hampered by the introduction of the injections which fool the body into creating less-effective antibodies. Moreover, the push to vaccinate young people is completely bonkers. The recovery rate for those under the age of 20 is astronomical. Children neither contract, spread, nor succumb to Covid-19 in a statistically meaningful way. What they DO succumb to more often than Covid-19 are the adverse reactions to the vaccines, particularly boys.
All of this is known and accepted by the medical community, yet most Americans are still following the vaccinate-everybody script. It requires pure cognitive dissonance and an overabundant need for confirmation bias to make doctors and scientists willingly go along with the program. Yet, here we are and that should tell you something.
Before I get to the five major minions of of Big Pharma, I must make the plea for help. Between cancel culture, lockdowns, and diminishing ad revenue, we need financial assistance in order to continue to spread the truth. We ask all who have the means, please donate through our GivingFuel page or via PayPal. Your generosity is what keeps these sites running and allows us to expand our reach so the truth can get to the masses. We’ve had great success in growing but we know we can do more with your assistance.
Who does Big Pharma control? It starts with the obvious people, the ones who most Americans believe are actually behind this push. Our governments at all levels as well as governments around the world are not working with Big Pharma. They are working for Big Pharma. Some are proactive as direct recipients of cash. Others may oppose Big Pharma in spirit but would never speak out because they know anyone who does has no future in DC.
This may come as a shock to some, but it’s Big Pharma that drives the narrative and sets the agenda for the “experts” at the CDC, FDA, WHO, NIH, NIAID, and even non-medical government organizations.
Most believe it’s the other way around. They think that Big Pharma is beholden to the FDA for approval, but that’s not exactly the case. They need approval for a majority of their projects, but when it comes to the important ones such as the Covid injections, Big Pharma is calling the shots. They have the right people in the right places to push their machinations forward.
That’s not to say that everyone at the FDA is in on it. Big Pharma only needs a handful of friendlies planted in leadership in order to have their big wishes met. We have seen people quitting the FDA in recent weeks for this very reason. The same can be said about the other three- and five-letter agencies. Too many people in leadership have been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed into becoming occasional shills for the various Big Pharma corporations. Some have even been directly planted by Big Pharma. That’s the politics of healthcare and science that drives such things as Covid-19 “vaccines.”
All ORIGINAL content on this site is © 2021 NOQ Report. All REPUBLISHED content has received direct or implied permission for reproduction.
With that said, our content may be reproduced and distributed as long as it has a link to the original source and the author is credited prominently. We don’t mind you using our content as long as you help out by giving us credit with a prominent link. If you feel like giving us a tip for the content, we will not object!
JD Rucker – EIC