ASCERTAINING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY & IRRATIONALITY OF FORCEFUL VACCINATION TOWARDS EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL

INTRODUCTION:

Firstly, we want to put it clearly that Private Institutions (such as Banks, Schools, Shopping Centers), Employers and the Government cannot force vaccination towards employees and the public in general as it is unconstitutional, irrational and unethical.

The mainstream media and law experts who are for covid-19 vaccinations have been spreading hysteria and fear i.e. they’re spreading that Government and Employers could and will force employees and the public in general to vaccinate with the covid-19 vaccine. To be blunt that’s a pure liar.

To put our argument to context we will reference an article with an appellate “South Africa: Legalities Around The Taking Or Refusal Of Vaccines and Treatment” published on the 18th of February 2021 by an Attorney named Mtho Maphumulo at Adams & Adams, www.adams.africa. The article suggested that through applying the right laws the South African Employers and Government can force Employees and people in general to vaccinate with covid-19 vaccine. This, paper shall share the article so that we are all familiar of what is said in it.

Nonetheless, to be blunt, what the article argued is pure fallacy based on the unfounded facts. This paper seeks amongst others, to dismiss the falsified statements purported by the aforementioned article and mainstream media’s biased reporting and publication. We will allude in this paper the essence of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa and why people cannot be force into taking vaccines. Thus, this paper will unpack the article paragraph by paragraph. For instance, we’ll say Paragraph-1 then state what it said, underneath we will give an answer to counterattack what has been said in the article as we are against it, eventually, one will comprehend why we perceive the content of the article a pure fallacy.

ARTICLE:

Legalities Around the Taking or Refusal of Vaccines & Medical Treatment
Covid-19 vaccine and the law

The starting point is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, the Supreme Law, specifically, Section 12(2)(b) which grants everyone the right to bodily and psychological integrity — which includes the right to security in and over control over their bodies. This right is intertwined with the other constitutional rights such as the right to human dignity. In the context of vaccinations and medical treatment, one may consider rights to religion, culture, etc. The State has a duty to protect people and provide medical services. Also, all constitutional rights are not absolute and are subject to limitation as per Section 36 of the Constitution. The limitation, however, must be regulated and cannot be irrational and arbitrary. Further, there are various legislations that permit medical treatment/procedures without the concerned person’s consent (and thus forced). Examples of such legislation include: National Health Act; Sterilisation Act; Termination of Pregnancy Act; etc. There is also plethora of cases where Section 12 of the Constitution has been brought to the fore and argued at length in our courts. In some cases, the courts have found it justifiable to limit the right to bodily integrity, whereas, in other cases, it has found it unjustifiable. Therefore, the legal position is that a person has the right to bodily and psychological integrity and must give free, informed and voluntary consent to medical treatment/vaccination, however, there are legal grounds upon which this right may be limited.

Vaccination/Treatment in Light of a Pandemic

The National Health Act, Section 7, is a pertinent legal source in this instance. Section 7(1)© states that health service may be provided without informed consent where there is a law or court order permitting it. Considering that we are in a state of disaster and the laws have been made and amended “as we go along”, a law authorising vaccination without consent could be promulgated (unless successfully challenged) or the government could approach a court to obtain an order authorising vaccination without consent. Furthermore, Section 7(1)(d) states that medical service may be provided without consent where failure to treat a person, or group of people, will result in a serious risk to public health. The nature of the COVID-19 virus and the manner in which it moves and spreads around could instigate the government to compel people to vaccinate. In fact, there is case law which would support the government in this regard — that of Minister of Health v Goliath. In this case, the respondents who had been diagnosed with an extremely contagious TB were refusing to comply with the necessary medical directives and the Minister of Health sought an order compelling them to be detained in a suitable facility. Although the court considered, to a great extent, Section 12 of the Constitution, the Minister of Health succeeded in the case as the court took cognizance of the State’s duty to control and obliterate the spread of communicable diseases. The court found the actions of the Minister of Health to be in greater public interest and concluded that the rights of the respondents could be justifiably limited.

With the aforesaid, it is clear that the law does permit the government to compel vaccination where legally permissible. The President may have directed that there will be no forced vaccinations, however, different contexts may dictate otherwise. We may also see court cases relating to this topic and, there may be sound grounds for forced vaccination, especially that relates to greater public interest.

Mtho Maphumulo
Associate | Litigation Attorney
Email: mthokozisi.maphumulo@adams.africa

TO UNPACKING & COUNTERATTACK THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE:

Paragraph — 1: under the sub-title, “Covid-19 vaccine and the law” in line no. 5 & 6

In the context of vaccinations and medical treatment; the article argues that, “the state has a duty to protect people and provide medical service”.

Answer:

Firstly, let’s underline “the state has a duty to protect people and provide medical service”. This clause does not say “the state has a duty to experiment vaccines on people”. We intend to put it clear that, there’s a huge difference between providing medical service on people and experimenting vaccines on people.

Secondly, the law or clause in the article does not say “the state has a duty to use people as guinea-pigs in an on-going medical experiment”. However, it says “the state has a duty to protect people and provide medical service”.

To scientifically prove that the covid-19 vaccines are still under trial and are being experimented on people http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/27/covid-vaccine-trials.aspx states that “All they’re doing is testing to see if this covid-19 vaccine will minimize common cold symptoms. They are not actually ensuring the vaccine will prevent serious covid-19 complications. Johnson & Johnson’s trial is the only one that requires at least five severe covid-19 cases to be included in the interim analysis”.

“while some covid-19 vaccine developers have been granted emergency use authorization, they still haven’t even completed Stage 3 of clinical trials. Data for some end points won’t even be collected until 24 months after injection. As such, they are still entirely experimental.

Furthermore, www.healthline.com states that experts say people can still spread and even develop covid-19 after getting a vaccine.

www.bbc.com there’s no evidence that any of the current covid-19 vaccines can completely stop people from being infected.

With the aforesaid Employers and the Government cannot force people to participate in an on-going medical experiment, in the context of covid-19 vaccinations.

In terms of the law our argument is captured in the clause 2(C) of the RSA Constitution, Bill of Rights, where it says, “everyone has a right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

Thirdly, let’s peruse at Informed Consent at length.

The constitution is clear, users of vaccines or health services have rights and must be informed about their rights to refuse vaccines or health services and also be explained to the implications, risks of such refusal. Thus, it is important for government not to only communicate in the mainstream media that is not mandatory but enforce to the Doctors and all the people who will be vaccinating and administering the vaccines to have a legal obligation to inform the users according to the acts.

Furthermore, an informed consent is not only about consent but is informed and the word informed has its own legal implications. An informed consent must be protected by law so that all Employers, Government Departments and Schools which will suggest that employees or learners attend work or school once they are vaccinated will be held accountable for violating the law of the land. Employers and Schools do not have contracts with our bodies hence they cannot dictate what must happen or be done with our bodies otherwise that shall be in violation of our right to bodily integrity. importantly this does not take away the rights and responsibilities of Employers, Government and Schools to provide safe working or schooling environments.

Contrary, this time around as individuals we don’t pose any danger to anyone, should the Employer, Government Departments or School suggest that, if we/you do not vaccinate you’ll infect or harm those who vaccinated. Then, we advise individuals to asks questions based on Notice Liability. This emphasizes that, you’ll have to ask your Employer or School or any Private Institution to provide you with verified evidence, records, knowledge or information concerning you specifically coming from another man or woman claiming that you’ve infected him/her or done him/her wrong or harm. Ask your Employer or School to provide you with a name of a Doctor and verified medical records about you specific as an individual that you have once infected any man or woman with any disease and you’re a danger to any man or woman. Should they fail to provide any verified records or information about you, that you’ve once endangered or harm any person, then they have no right to harass you.

Employers, Corporations, Government, Schools, Shopping Centers and other Private Institutions / Organizations do not have contracts to your bodies. However, should they pass laws within their institutions which violate the Constitution of the land, automatically, their laws are invalid and unconstitutional. Lastly, if Institutions say people could refuse vaccination but on the other hand put measures in place which force or corner people to vaccinate, their measures are invalid and unconstitutional.

Paragraph — 2: of the article under the sub-title, Vaccination/Treatment in Light of a Pandemic line no.1 & 2, states that, “The National Health Act, Section 7, is a pertinent legal source in this instance. Section 7(1)© states that health service may be provided without informed consent where there is a law or court order permitting it.” This argument is pure nonsensical and misleading, and it was not even supposed to be published in this sensitive scam and plannedemic that we are subjected to. for the following reasons;

· Firstly, The National Health Act №61 of 2003 is a government gazette, it is not the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. To give context, a government gazette is a tool to communicate messages of national importance to the public. It contains information of a legal, administrative and general nature.

· Secondly, all government departments be it private institutions are not allowed to pass or make laws which will go against the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Thus, we reject the argument made in line 1 and 2 of the article at hand. Due to the reasons that…

· South Africa is a democratic state, guided by the supreme law (Constitution of the Republic). This means the Constitution is the highest law of the land. No law is above the constitution. Unjust law is not law at all. Government gazettes are smaller than the Constitution. Additionally, Parliament cannot pass a law which goes against the Constitution of the country. The Constitution itself is protected because it is much more difficult to change than any other law and it is the supreme law of the Republic of South Africa.

Paragraph — 1: under the sub-title, “Covid-19 vaccine and the law” in line no. 6 & 7

The article argues that, “all constitutional rights are not absolute and are subject to limitation as per Section 36 of the Constitution. The limitation, however, must be regulated and cannot be irrational and arbitrary”.

To bring context in the aforesaid, limitation clause in the Constitution basically allows some rights to be infringed and interfered with in times of crisis and state of emergency BUT rights could be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors including the nature of the right. However, in the covid-19 pandemic the government and world scientists have not been able to isolate the covid-19 virus. Thus, the SARS Covid-19 pandemic that the world talks about today was drawn from a number of researches conducted by Dr. Fauci and his team, and embraced by World Health Organization (WHO), and Melinda & Bill Gates Foundation. Dr. Fauci is a Medical Doctor and a Director of the National Institute of the Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), currently he is a chief medical advisor to the current President of the United States Joe Biden. The findings made by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s team that involved Gregory K Folkers, Peter S Kim, Sarah W Read, and David M Morens, we found them to be unfounded and misleading, on the basis that they have based their research on polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

According to Doctor Kevin P. Corbett, a Retired Nurse and Health Scientist from the UK, “the covid-19 vaccines are not proven safe or effective, covid is not a real medical epidemic, therefore, Scientists and Scholars across the world are demanding that all covid 19 vaccinations be immediately stopped. The real epidemic is fear and hysteria and it is quickly spread by the World Health Organization. The hysteria was also accelerated by corporations who gained financially through selling fast tract flawed medical tests, toxic drugs and now unproven and potentially dangerous vaccines. Standards precautions which normally protects the public have been disregarded and bypassed due to greed, proceeds and conflict of interest. Example, the vaccines have not undergone proper phase, pre-tests, the covid tests. The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is fakely flawed, it was never examined in the standard way by the South African National Health Service and it should never be used on sick people or those with no symptoms.

To give context; Doctor Carrie Madej had this to say, “I’m here to tell you that there’s no worldwide pandemic called covid-19, we are using testing mechanisms called PCR that has never been indicated or created to diagnose any infections, this is not the way we should be diagnosing. This vaccine is experimental on a human race because they are proposing to use modified messenger RNA (mRNA) or modified DNA synthetic to the human body this is the first time ever this will ever be launched in the human race. We don’t know what could happen to us. In addition, they are proposing to use Nano-lipid technology or Nano-technology on a human race as well. There are so many different awful things that could happen to us and we need to investigate this before we go forward, this is my alarm call to the world”.

To unpack and breakdown Doctor Madej & Doctor Corbett’s arguments so that they make sense.

In order for the WHO alongside the world governments to declare that there is Coronavirus they’ve used PCR testing mechanism but they’ve never isolated the virus from the laboratory hence Doctor Carrie Madej says, “I’m here to tell you that there’s no worldwide pandemic called covid-19, we are using testing mechanisms called PCR that has never been indicated or created to diagnose any infections, this is not the way we should be diagnosing.

To break down what is a PCR. It is a method which was discovered in 1983 by Dr Kary Mullis. It is widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing Scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in details. It is not for diagnosing viruses, then the biggest question we have as Aboriginals, why use PCR to test viruses? Doctor Ralf ER Sundberg as well says the PCR Test is inaccurate and causes many faults positives. On the other hand, Doctor Johan Denis argues that the corona vaccines will possibly change people’s DNA, this is irreversible and irreparable for all future generations. Dr Johan Denis makes sense as the solely purpose of a PCR is to amplify DNA samples but not to isolate/diagnose viruses. Dr Johan Denis further argues that, there’s Nano-technology present in this vaccine, nanobots in hydrogels have been developed for military purposes, there’re strong indications that it could make people controllable puppets by means of smartphones connected with a 5G-Network and artificial intelligence, in this way we could lose everything that makes us human. It is therefore, clear that the evidence presented by Doctors and Scientists indicates that the covid-19 vaccines which will be applied on humanity by various governments across the World shall temper and corrupt people’s DNA.

Koch’s Postulate Law:

The three rules invented by Robert Koch’s has been used by a number of scientists for many decades in the epoch of medical science. It provides rules to be applied when attempting to scientifically isolate a pathogen that causes a disease. The rules are as follows;

1. Suspected casual organism must be constantly associated with the disease.

2. The suspected casual organism must be isolated (in a laboratory) from the infected and grown in a pure culture.

3. When a healthy susceptible host is inoculated with the pathogen from pure culture, symptoms of the original disease must develop.

We bring this into the centre of attention because the government alongside private institutions and employers intend to use Section 36 of the Constitution to violate people’s rights based on a virus that is not isolated from a laboratory. The Council or entity that decide on what direction to be taken and what to be done is not informed and recognized by the law and the Constitution of the land, this is the National Coronavirus for Command Council (NCCC). The testing mechanism used to test people is flawed, this is the PCR testing mechanism. Additionally, the inventor of PCR himself said PCR are not for diagnosing viruses but are for multiplying DNA. Then the formerly mentioned, leaves us to conclude that if the testing mechanism of covid-19 itself is flawed then everything about covid-19 is flawed and planned.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) was invented solely to multiply DNA for Scientists’ use. However, it was never invented to isolate or diagnose viruses/infections. This simply means that all the so-called positive cases of coronavirus in South Africa aren’t real but fabricated and fakely diagnosed.

Paragraph — 1: under the sub-title, “Covid-19 vaccine and the law” in line no. 12, 13 & 14

Argues that, “In some cases, the courts have found it justifiable to limit the right to bodily integrity, whereas, in other cases, it has found it unjustifiable. Therefore, the legal position is that a person has the right to bodily and psychological integrity and must give free, informed and voluntary consent to medical treatment/vaccination, however, there are legal grounds upon which this right may be limited’.

The bill of rights that the government, private institutions and employers intend to violate or limit or infringe based on the virus that has never been isolated from a laboratory and a vaccine that is developed within a space of 12 months (by bypassing the International Science Protocol for Developing Vaccines/Drugs; which states that vaccine must be subjected for trials for 5 to 15 years, it must be tested on animals) are:

· Section 12(2) states that, everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right….

(a) to make decisions concerning reproduction;

(b) to security in and control over their body; and

© not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

· Section 15(1) states that, everyone has the right

(a) to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.

They plan to limit the aforesaid rights based on Section 36 of the Constitution which says, rights may be limited in justifiable circumstances. Section 7(1)(d) of the National Health Act, which is a government gazette but not the constitution states that medical service may be provided without consent where failure to treat a person, or group of people, will result in a serious risk to public health. The article also went on to as far as give a case as an example, why must people’s rights to bodily integrity and of giving of informed consents ought to be infringed or limited.

The case they gave as an example is from Paragraph — 2: of the article under the sub-title, Vaccination/Treatment in Light of a Pandemic. I quote, “In fact, there is case law which would support the government in this regard — that of Minister of Health v Goliath. In this case, the respondents who had been diagnosed with an extremely contagious TB were refusing to comply with the necessary medical directives and the Minister of Health sought an order compelling them to be detained in a suitable facility. Although the court considered, to a great extent, Section 12 of the Constitution, the Minister of Health succeeded in the case as the court took cognizance of the State’s duty to control and obliterate the spread of communicable diseases. The court found the actions of the Minister of Health to be in greater public interest and concluded that the rights of the respondents could be justifiably limited”.

The aforesaid case that the article used or gave as an example that the government or private institutions could use to force covid-19 vaccination on humanity it’s a joke and does not hold any water. For instances that they’ve used or compared a Tuberculosis (TB) case to justify covid-19, these two diseases are incomparable and will never be. To give context on the formerly mentioned; on March 24, 1882, through using Koch’s Postulate Processes Dr. Robert Koch announced the discovery of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (TB), the bacteria that causes Tuberculosis (TB). Dr Koch’s discovery was the most important step taken toward the control and elimination of TB. A century later, March 24 was designated World TB Day: a day to educate the public about the impact of TB around the world. Koch’s discoveries and research led to the creation of Koch’s Postulates, and for his research on TB specific Koch received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1905. However, there are no records of Doctors across the world discovering or isolating covid-19 from a laboratory? Thus, based on science protocol covid-19 does not exist hence we will reject any court of law which will use a TB case to justify covid-19 as these two diseases are incomparable and will never be. This is science misconduct.

THE NAME OF THE GROUP WE ARE REPRESENTING IS: AWAKENING ABORIGINALS; A CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT THAT ADVOCATES FOR RESPECT & PROTECTION OF THE ABORIGINALS NATURAL RIGHTS.

Contacted @ 079 254 1041 / 082 363 4548

godfreycarry@gmail.com / nathinice.mamba@gmail.com

--

--

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

German chancellor candidate Baerbock accused of plagiarism

German chancellor candidate Baerbock accused of plagiarism

What Jamus Lim Isn’t Telling You About The Minimum Wage

Small coffins

Greece accuses Turkey of escorting migrant boats to EU

Greece accuses Turkey of escorting migrant boats to EU

The EU will not ‘’share identity’’ with US on China

The EU will not ‘'share identity'’ with US on China

Iran charges French tourist with espionage

Iran charges French tourist with espionage

France will not recognise Taliban as leaders of Afghanistan

France will not recognise Taliban as leaders of Afghanistan

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
elona_opulence

elona_opulence

More from Medium

Public schools in the US must be restructured to establish better relationships between faculty and…

The beatiful mess effect

Reflection and Recalibration

The role of the smaller parties in Election 2022