It’s been over two years since waves of ever tightening restrictions, including wholesale house arrests, began to be placed on healthy citizens who had committed no crime. One by one, the world’s democracies buckled to the herd panic about the Covid pandemic sweeping the world and their governments increasingly took on hues of totalitarian regimes in telling people when, where, how far, how long and with whom and how many they could go out or even sleep with; what businesses could operate and under what conditions; what medications doctors could and could not prescribe irrespective of their own professional judgement and knowledge of their patients; and mandatory mask and vaccine requirements for an array of social and professional interactions.
Many directives lacked scientific basis and some were downright wacky – there really is no better word for it. The apotheosis of executive overreach came in Canada with the truckers’ Freedom Convoy in Ottawa and in the Australian state of Victoria. In both, MPs betrayed the people, the country and the constitution by putting their own careers first, the party second and the country last. The unchecked growth of the administrative state and centralisation of authority, power and decision-making in prime ministers’ and premiers’ offices fused seamlessly into the rise of the biofascist state. Complicity by the media in propagating fear porn, social media censorship of alternative voices and threats of disciplinary proceedings including dismissal and deregistration by professional governing bodies ensured there’s been a stifling conformism.
The biggest surprise for me was the ease with which freeborn citizens fell into unquestioning compliance. Human rights commissions went MIA just when most needed. The ACT (Canberra: my jurisdiction until this year) Human Rights Commission, for example, resorted to vague generalities: “Restrictions on rights should only stay in place for as long as they are necessary, and they should not limit rights more severely than they need to.” It promised it was “monitoring the restrictions”. This was in December.
The biggest disappointment was the speed with which institutional bulwarks against executive tyranny – parliament, media, human rights commissions and lobby groups – buckled in the biggest onslaught on freedoms and liberties in history. The most profoundly disappointing was the abdication of the courts to keep a check on the descent into de facto if temporary tyranny, notwithstanding constitutional safeguards like the Charter of Rights in Canada. Courts mostly deferred to the executive.
Thus several legal challenges to the growing array of U.K. restrictions in the name of public health simply fizzled out. In a series of decisions in 2020-21, Australian courts upheld the validity of COVID-19 restrictions, including Palmer v Western Australia (2021), Loielo v Giles (2020), Gerner v State of Victoria (2020) and Cotterill v Romanes (2021). Victoria’s Supreme Court dismissed challenges to public health orders because the test of proportionality had to be applied to the package of measures taken as a whole, which had helped to mitigate the pandemic risk. On vaccine mandates, on November 3rd a federal judge ruled that Victoria could fire nurses who refused Covid vaccines. On December 8th, the New South Wales Supreme Court ruled against a crowd-funded legal challenge to vaccine mandates for teachers, health and age care workers and some construction workers that was first rejected in a court in October and then appealed. Most consequentially of all, in February 2021 the High Court, Australia’s top court, upheld Western Australia’s border closure. Law professor James Allan has argued that had PM Scott Morrison not chickened out of supporting mining magnate Clive Palmer’s challenge, he would likely have won.
Maybe, just maybe, the courts are starting to bestir themselves to restore balance and normality. Last October, an Ontario labour arbitrator ruled employees cannot be disciplined or terminated for refusing vaccination. In March, an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled that a mother doesn’t have to vaccinate her children just because this is encouraged by the Government. In January, South Africa’s employment tribunal held an employee’s dismissal for refusing vaccination was unfair. On February 25th, the New Zealand High Court upheld a challenge to vaccination mandates for police and defence personnel. In February, Austria’s powerful 14-member Constitutional Court sought detailed data from the health ministry on hospitalisations, masks and vaccines to justify strict COVID-19 measures. The compulsory vaccination law was passed in January and took effect in February, making Austria the first EU country to go down that route, with fines of up to €3,600 for dissenters from mid-March. Just a month later, however, the Government abandoned the effort because the “encroachment of fundamental rights” could no longer be justified as the Omicron variant was less severe than earlier variants. The court’s questions likely nudged the Government into pulling back. Last month, Sicily’s Court of Administrative Justice held vaccine mandates to be unconstitutional because mRNA vaccines had been shown to cause “serious or fatal side effects”. Even if fatalities are rare, even a single death was enough to invalidate the mandate. The case will now proceed to Italy’s Constitutional Court.
Because of the compliance pull that the U.S. Supreme Court exercises globally, its decision on January 13th to vacate the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers, with limited mandate for healthcare workers in facilities receiving federal money, was momentous. The ruling by Florida’s federal judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on April 18th, struck down mask mandates in public transport. Hers was a legal decision, not a political or scientific one: the CDC had exceeded its lawful authority. The ruling was met with spontaneous cheers and celebrations from crew and passengers alike after mid-flight announcements. The tone-deaf administration decided to appeal and the ever-reliable Anthony Fauci questioned the authority of courts to overrule health bureaucrats. Having earlier dismissed any criticism directed at him as attacking science itself, he now wants to place the CDC and National Institute of Health above the rule of law.
The decision from the Supreme Court of India on May 2nd is especially noteworthy. Firstly, because it’s the top court in the land, covering the entire country in its writ and including educational institutions and private organisations. Second, it affects 1.3 billion people. And third, because of its longevity, stature and robust independence that has often crossed into outright judicial activism, its opinions are influential in shaping discussions in other countries’ legal proceedings. The Court held that the central Government has the right to put restrictions on people’s rights as a public health safety measure. However, owing to “bodily integrity and personal autonomy”, under Article 21 of the Constitution no individual can be forced to get vaccinated. Most importantly, the Court based its decision on “emerging scientific opinion [that] appears to indicate that the risk of transmission of the virus from unvaccinated individuals is almost on par with that from vaccinated persons”. Therefore, vaccine mandates are not “proportionate”. In a further twist that will bring joy to Covid vaccine sceptics everywhere, the Court directed the Government to facilitate the reporting of suspected adverse effects on a publicly accessible platform.
If no other institution or forum will rigorously scrutinise the science and data behind public health orders that affect entire populations, then the courts are our last remaining hope in which to test the substance of the health advice and government decisions. That is the key significance of the Indian Supreme Court’s decision.
Ramesh Thakur is Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy and a former UN Assistant Secretary-General.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
That’s socialism!
The rich have never paid taxes that’s the whole point of getting rich, Once they have about five million they hire a retired tax inspector, of which there are many to deal with those pesky affairs. They don’t even see it as a bad thing merely the next appropriate step. Rupert Murdoch boasts that he has paid minimal tax throughout his life and he is lauded as a folk hero for his bucanerieng spirit.If democracy was all it is cracked up to be then submitting your tax returns would be a joyous occasion because you would feel the deilight of pooling your money with others for the betterment of the common weal but it doesn’t really have that kind of vibe about it.
They don’t mean really rich people, just everyone richer than they are. Paying more tax doesn’t really truly rich people’s lifestyles anyway. What they mean is tax the middle class especially those working in the private sector, and the self employed.
That’s true. In economics they call it the hourglass effect. The top and the bottom swell up and the middle is squeezed out entirely.
People getting paid for doing nothing, parasites on wealth producers. There is a transfer from private sector, wealth creating workers to non-producers.
As for the public sector workers – even the ones like the holy NHS lot – since their output is not sold in a free competitive market, there is no price system by which the value of output v value of input can be assessed.
I would wager the cost of providing that output far exceeds its value, particularly since they get paid more and more without any link to revenue absent a price system, or any means to ensure more out for more payment.
It is the politics of envy.
You confuse tax amount with marginal tax rate.
10% tax on £1 million is more than 20% of £30 000, for example.
The problem is we have a large trough called tax revenue, and a population of pigs desperate to get their snouts into it to snuffle up as much plunder as possible.
A population that thinks others should provide for them what they don’t provide for themselves, greedy voters who believe they have a right to other people’s money (particularly if wealthier) to be used to serve their interests.
The obsession about taxation is because everyone thinks they have a right to live of each other.
Time people learned to expect to support themselves.
Jeremy Kyle talking sense here. Prioritizing migrants for housing over natives…could this be the solution for social cohesion we’ve all been waiting for? <max sarc>
”Jeremy Kyle slams Angela Raynor’s housing policies that will allow terrorists to have council houses. British taxpayers will no longer be given priority for social housing over migrants.”
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1826913762466476050
It’s just a post on Twitter, so no source, but if this is really the case across England then is it any wonder they’re getting to jump the queue?
”One of my followers connected with social housing brings us the sheer entitlement of Muslims in the South-East.
“Hi David, I saw your post regarding social housing & would like to share with you. I can’t publicly post due to my job so this is completely anonymous.
“Ninety-five percent of people presenting as homeless to our local council are Muslim, they refuse to be put into temporary accommodation due to religious reasons. I assume its due to male & female family members having to share a room.
“They therefore are given keys immediately to long term council housing & completely bypass the waiting list, approximately 3- 5 years in hostels for British applicants.”
Absolutely outrageous.”
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1827048865511391590
Just happened tonight in Germany. It never stops. Attacker still at large;
”Several people were killed and more injured in a knife attack in the western German city of Solingen on Friday, German media reported.
According to reports, a man stabbed passers-by at random with a knife at a festival celebrating the city’s 650th anniversary.
The local newspaper Solinger Tageblatt reported that three people had been killed and others were in a life-threatening situation.
Philipp Müller, one of the co-organizers, said paramedics are fighting to save the lives of nine people.”
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-several-reported-killed-at-street-party-in-solingen/a-70037172
”Police have deployed helicopters to search for an “Arab-looking perpetrator” responsible for a mass stabbing spree in Solingen this evening.
At least 3 people are dead and several others seriously injured after the attack during a street festival celebrating diversity.”
https://x.com/RMXnews/status/1827097475485688005
A German Twitter post suggests he shouted the magic ‘Allah’s Snackbar’ before the murders and was a regular visitor to the local terrorist centre – oops mosque.
Yep, that source is here;
”A report from the Solingen police, which WELT AM SONNTAG has access to, states verbatim: “A witness who was injured in the attack stated that the unknown suspect was ‘known from Solingen’ and that he was also a visitor to a local mosque. A witness reported that the suspect shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ during his actions.”
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article253170104/Solingen-Polizeibericht-Zeuge-hoerte-Allahu-Akbar-Ruf.html
No riots in Germany then?
They don’t have a Far Right any more do they – except for Far Right anti-free speech laws against anyone who criticises government or office holders apparently.
If you are in Germany and do that on X etc you go to chokey.
National socialism is not dead it just exists under a different identity. Apparently there are loads to choose from including 108 different gender identities thanks to our Far Left national socialist friends around the world.
“Destabilise, destabilise, destabilise.” screeched the Daleks in the BBC’s new woke version of Dr What.
No longer Dr Who because apparently the good Doctor will regenerate in a new gender identity every episode – with all the fabulous clothes the costume department can run riot with.
Are there so many Pride marches, Pride months, Pride flags, Pride articles etc because they need to convince themselves there is something about all of this to be proud of?
Maybe there will one day be heterosexual pride months and marches and flags and articles.
Nah. ‘Born heterosexual and proud of it’ seems unnecessary.
“It can’t be right that we have no limits on one part of our economy and yet we force real-terms pay cuts [on others].”–YES IT IS. ——Government employees make NOTHING. They sell NOTHING. They create no wealth. If I manufacture a product and everyone wants to buy it, then why should I not benefit from that? But it is not only me who benefits. All the people I employ benefit through good employment. There is a supply chain that benefits providing all the stuff I need to make my product. ——This Tax the rich idea is the politics of envy. I believe we tax oil and gas companies at a rate about 70%. This is absurd.
It’s why the oil/gas companies are leaving the North Sea: there are more profitable opportunities elsewhere. And then the UK will need to import even more!
The main beneficiary is the consumer who has something they want and value.
Sound money – value backed – is created when a good/service consumers want and value is produced.
Where nothing is produce valueless money is created out of thin air by Government to supplement money taken from producers to pay non-producers. This debauches the currency, causes inflation which further transfers wealth from producers to non-producers. Producers have to produce more, but get less in exchange making them poorer. Non-producers don’t have to work harder to increase their income, it’s guaranteed by Government printing money.
This post should make it absolutely clear. Dale Vince is a snake oil salesman. His business is “Renewable Energy”, or to be more accurate, harvesting enormous subsidies for wind turbines and solar panels,
“Solutions” that absolutely don’t work for “Problems” that don’t really exist.
No wonder he can give a £5 Million public bung ( and doubtless many nice private tokens of his affection) to corrupt and totally incompetent politicians who want to impoverish and replace YOU.
Yep——Infact no one would ever build a wind turbine without the massive subsidy because they are totally uneconomical. For every watt of electricity they produce you need the same amount ticking over in the background from a full time source like gas as backup for when the wind stops (which is often) This is like having to buy two televisions or two cars or two houses when one should be all that is required.
Spot on.
They’ll all want what the Doctors get, and still won’t be content!
Bonfire of the public sector and QUANGO’s is needed, and why should taxpayer funded public sector employee’s be allowed to unionise? It’s not the government that pays their income, pensions and pay rises, its the long suffering taxpayer, who they have no qualms inconveniencing and abusing!
They need reminding they are public SERVANTS.
Mr Vince is not short of a bob or two. let him start, he should send a cheque for 95% of his wealth to HMRC
Back to the future. Voting for the Dark Lord Starmer’s Socialist Party was a vote for the 1970s.
Reminder: 22% inflation, 16% mortgage rates, powerful unions, 14% union wage claims, 35% to 83% Income Tax rates, 46% corporation tax, strikes, strikes, strikes in the public sector and strategic industry, power cuts, increasing unemployment, flight of wealthy abroad, Brain Drain as professionals also fled abroad, general air of gloom and misery.
The good old days. Makes me almost nostalgic.
In the good old days, workers in the public sector accepted a lower pay rate during their working lives for an index linked pension at the end of it.
So the unions must surely now be quite happy for the government to reverse that position and not have anymore index linked ‘inflation proof’ pension funds and make all the public sector employees have the same state pension arrangements as the private sector.
If only the private sector workers could go on strike to get their pay raised to the 2011 equivalent level. Or perhaps private companies should charge public sector workers more for their services?