On informed personal choice

Over the last few months, I have frequently been asked where I stood on the subject of vaccinations. My standard reply has always been: informed personal choice. I still stand by this. Over the course of the last ten years of so, main media channels have certainly had the opportunity to mis-represent my stance, so let me briefly share my key semi-public documents and some of the reasons for their, at times, aggressive misrepresentations. I therefore include below bits and pieces that may (or not) be of interest…

When I was still in Victoria around ten years ago, the State (Labor) had a proposed legislation that sought to prohibit children participating in Kindergartens unless they were vaccinated (the so-called ‘no-jab – no-play’ legislation). This was followed, around the same time, with Federal (Liberal) proposed legislation that sought to financially penalise parents who did vaccinate their children (the so-called ‘no-jab – no-play’ legislation). The Victorian legislation had the potential to impact families within the Steiner community in which I lived and worked. Even though the majority of families did in fact choose to vaccinate their child(ren), many who did adopted a slower schedule than the bureaucrats’ preferred. Consequently, many would not be able to participate in Kindergarten or Playgroup settings – a situation that has since spread to all (as far as I can tell) States and Territories across Australia. Prior to the legislation being passed, I wrote to each and every elected representative of the Victorian Parliament – a one-page letter that I include here, as that is one of two that I have been specifically asked for a number of times.

> 2014 letter re No-Jab – No-Play

It was interesting, for me at least, that EVERY single response from members of the Labor party, despite they being elected by a unique electorate, had word-for-word the same response – at least members of the Liberal party had a variety of unique responses, some displaying either understanding or agreement with all or parts of my letter (in essense, addressing personal liberty and enshrining parental responsibility). It was also in light of this proposed legislation that I opted (or rather was willing) to stand as an independent candidate at the ensuing State elections, in a Senate seat I knew I had close to ZERO chance of being elected: another matter later main media characterised as my having aspirations to politics – perhaps they were prescient, though at the time I certainly had none!

In September 2017, after having moved to WA and not long afterward having a marriage break-up, I resigned from my position – coincidentally at a time the WA ‘Health’ bureaucracy decided to push for incresased vaccinations in communities with lower rates – which included, as could reasonably be expected, Steiner communities (who still have, on the whole and perhaps to some surprisingly, an approximate participation rate of over 80%… at least prior to the Covid fiasco). As the media focussed on a single 15 yo who had returned from a family holiday with measles (and for which I applied the then current requirements of school exclusion for the designated time), the school’s community became a target for media attention, in large part due to some bureaucrats, in the so-called ‘Health’ department, including the then ‘Deputy Chief Health Officer’ (in common Newspeak nomenclature) directly informing the media (as they personally informed me during a meeting). The Australian (AND British!) media, including the ABC, somehow linked my resignation to my purported ‘anti-vaccination’ stance ‘evident’ from my Victorian days where what I actually opposed was withdrawing parental decision!

> …they found a twist… but got the whole story totally wrong

Still, in the meantime, the WA 2016 Health Act was, perhaps obviously given my position, a matter I had scrutinised… and found it rather difficult to believe that section 175 j gives sweeping powers to an “Authorised Officer” – who need
not have any medical training whatsoeter – to “direct any person to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated” without any legal recours, even if there is a ‘lack of scientific certainty’. Furthermore, s158.1 states that “an authorised officer or police officer may use reasonable force to ensure that the direction is complied with”, including if necessary “apprehend and detain” individuals, “restrain” and “remove anything (including underwear)” (and Yes – even that part of the sentence is actually written in the Act!). It was on reading this and other aspects of the Act that I put a draft political ‘advert’ that was used by the Health Australia Party during State elections in 2020.

>See full page advert that went into the West Australian on 9th March 2020

So I suppose I have been ‘politically’ engaged… as each and everyone adult is, whether through a more explicit and active involvement or by default. Steiner’s 3-fold Social Order here makes for an interesting reading (as does Peter Deunov’s three-fold views on social engagement). Still, events at times serve a deeper purpose: when the Covid-19 restrictions came into play, I certainly did not wear a mask, nor chose to participate in the injection schedule. I was, however, totally suportive of those who decided to partake, without needing to discuss nor know of their reasons. in 2021, there was an imminent threat that schools would be subject to mandated injections. Though no official pronouncement had yet been made, groundwork was evident, and, as it came to pass a week after my letter, impositions were there for schools to collect evidence of Covid-19 injections (TWO injections were mandated by the end of January 2022, or principals were to not permit staff onto premises (parents were fine, as it must have been somehow ‘obvious’ that the claimed disease has different ways of spreading based on whether you are seating and eating, on your parental status, etc).

Though I was certain my internal letter would be shared amongst families of staff, I must admit I was somewhat surprised as to the speed at which the West Australian obtained a copy (or at least, it seems, only the first of two pages). Short story made shorter, pressure was placed on the board to ‘act’. I had already proposed to the board a way to ensure that all mandates could be met without losing a single position at the school, costing it no more than $37k per term (a sum the school could well afford under the circumstances) – instead, six (if I recall properly) staff had their contract terminated (including myself).

> Internal letter of 11th November 2021 – the one that caused a stir

> West Australian page (front page was also prominent) – and West Australian online article (as well as other mainstream media)

Lastly (for now I am sure), my more ‘public’ political responses have only been two-fold. In one I wrote a very brief submission with regards Digital ID, and the other a public statement when it came to the last proposed changes to the Australian Constitution in regards the so-called ‘Voice to Parliament’. In each case, what may be evident (or perhaps not) is that any proposal that undermines personal autonomy is something that I personally consider undermines democracy itself.

With regards the Digital ID, I must have ticked the box for anonymity, as I did receive confirmation of the acceptance of my brief submission (at the time there were only three or four). As rather brief, I simpy include it below:

Digital ID

“The proposed legislation related to ‘Digital ID’ potentially takes our country in a direction that is problematic at best, and dystopian at worst.

In the case of an individual who does not wish to participate in the proposed Digital ID, the proposed Act makes no provision for the protection of such person, whether applying for a job where an employer may ‘require’ such (Cf, as an implicit example, the submission provided by Woolworths), engaging with government bureaucracies (eg, Medicare or Social Security may begin to ‘require’ Digital IDs), or opening a bank account, telephone (or ISP) account, etc.

This proposed Act is not one that needs modification to address these concerns, but rather, as per the previously dropped proposal for a National ID promulgated by a previous Labor Government, has no place in a liberal democracy not intent on moving towards a totalitarian regime exemplified by modern China.”

Of course, there is so much to address: internationally, Australia’s submissive attitude to the UN, the WHO, WEF, World Bank, UNESCO, and a host of other bodies verges on treason (whose basic and legal meaning is ‘The betrayal of allegiance toward one’s own country’). To have various international agreed ways that aim to honour the sovereignty of each country is worthwhile: the agreemens increasingly entered into, however, are precisely the reverse. At the national level, forms of migration need to take into account the impact on our communal and cultural makeup – and keep it at a reasonable level. Also, legislations that have diminished capacity for autonomy need to be revoked, including, from my perspective, every single so-called ‘Health Act’ across various States that I have seen. Likewise, there has been significant diminishment in truly independent education – there is no place for a so-called National Curriculum nor, for that matter, any centralised State curriculum. Parents are, on the whole, highly responsible individuals who strive to make the best decision for their children, on the whole wanting to protect them from sexualisation at too an early age (which in any case is not, as far as I am concerned, a school matter) – and so much more that the woke agenda has promulgated.

At a more State or LOCAL level, the impending proposed building of wind-turbines off-shore is a crazy distraction.