To The Proprietor:
I am one of your loyal regular customers. I love your business and I wish you prosperity and all the very best.
I see a situation brewing and I don’t want you to be caught in the middle. As of December 17th the government has stated that it wants you to implement their health status apartheid agenda. I want to make you aware that it is illegal to do so and an extreme violation of Human Rights. (Please see the Australian Governmental resources quoted attached) No business in this country is legally allowed to discriminate on the grounds of health status or disability. You would not refuse entry to your premises to a person with HIV, or a pregnant woman, nor can you to an unvaccinated person.
WE are intelligent educated people who, after discussing the risks with our general practitioner, we can see that we pose no risk to any of your other patrons or staff, vaccinated or not. However, the risks to us from having the vaccine far out way the risks to us if we don’t. This is an informed choice on our part made in consultation with registered health care practitioners and from information available from governmental sources. WE are not alone. Many have co- morbidities that can prove fatal if combined with the Covid19 vaccines. The TGA (The Australian Therapeutic Goods Association) acknowledges that there have been over 81,000 serious side effects reported, that’s 1 IN EVERY 160 PEOPLE, from all the different experimental Covid19 vaccines, requiring hospitalisation and treatment, which is far more than have required treatment from Covid19 itself. Instead of taking this risk, many government agencies are now recommending the new best practise for business as bi-weekly “Rapid Antigen Testing” of all staff, or instant testing of patrons, vaccinated or not, that gives an instant result in 3mins for the modest cost of as little as $10 which totally eliminates any contagion risk.
I AM OFFICIALLY GIVING YOU NOTICE THAT SHOULD ANY BUSINESS CHOOSE TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ME, MY PARTNER, MY FAMILY, OR ANY OF OUR FRIENDS ON THESE GROUNDS, THAT WE WILL EACH BE FORCED TO LODGE A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION COMPLAINT THAT WILL LIKELY REQUIRE THE BUSINESS OWNER TO ATTEND ARBITRATION AND CAN INCUR REAL PENALTIES FOR YOU AND YOUR BUSINESS/CLUB.
You can preempt this and protect your business by not complying with calls for you to discriminate, and, by making your own Human Rights violation complaint, about being placed in such a morally compromising position. The Human Rights site is set up so that I can only lodge a complaint about the person/business that discriminates against me directly, my family or friends. I cannot lodge a complaint about this commonwealth body requesting this regulation be implemented, but you can as they have asked this directly of your business! I detest the fact that they are placing you between a rock and a hard place. Please be aware that the regulations requested by the government to be implemented by your business is not a law, it is a regulation that your business may also seek to appeal with a complaint to Australian Human Rights Commission, who have been warning businesses that should they choose to comply that they are placing their business in a precarious position.
It is interesting to note that Coles/Meyers have reportedly refused to implement these regulations even though they would be in a better position than most businesses to weather lengthy arbitration and endless human rights law suits. It appears that the government may be using small business as a shield to protect itself from the direct consequences of human rights violations policies that would otherwise be lodged directly against them.
Out of concern for your business, and empathy for your struggle through these difficult times, I beg you not to comply and place yourself in this precarious position. There are many, many, angry people out there that have been pushed too far. Direct action via human rights violations complaints is a hotly discussed topic on social media right now and will be the direct action taken by many individuals. Please don’t put your business in the firing line.
Love and Blessings your faithful patron.
PLEASE MAKE YOUR OWN COMPLAINT HERE
1.) Please be aware of THE AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION stand on discrimination on the
grounds of vaccination:
“What are the human rights principles for vaccine passports? Currently there are no federal public health orders or laws that make COVID-19 vaccine passports mandatory in Australia. The Commission understands the Federal Government is considering the matter. We will update the information on this page if the government proposes to introduce legislation to mandate vaccine passports. This page provides general information on the human rights considerations for vaccine passports and gives guidance on the most frequently asked questions we are getting on this topic. The information reflects current anti-discrimination legislation, relevant court decisions, and guidance issued by government agencies. This information is intended as a guide only. Individuals, businesses, and service providers are encouraged to obtain legal advice about their own specific circumstances....
They must take into account the potential for discrimination.
Vaccine passports may have significant implications for privacy and autonomy, freedom of movement and association, equity and discrimination, particularly when it comes to accessing everyday goods and services.... Vaccine passports are more likely to be consistent with human rights when they are used as a tool to ease existing restrictions and improve public health outcomes. Rather than becoming a further requirement on top of existing restrictions, .... https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/human-rights-considerations-vaccine-passports
2.) Please be aware that THE FAIR WORK COMMISSION has firmly spoken out agains these kinds of regulations:
VACCINE REQUIREMENTS IN RELATION TO COVID
 COVID vaccinations, in accordance with the Australian Government’s policy, must be freely available and voluntary
for all Australians.
 Mandatory COVID vaccinations, however, cannot be justified in almost every workplace in Australia. While there are numerous reasons for this, this decision will focus on:
a) the requirement for freely given and informed consent for medical procedures;
b) denying an unvaccinated person the ability work on health and safety grounds, whether at the initiation of an employer or as part of a PHO; and
c) the requirements to comply with disability discrimination laws.
 There is of course a degree of overlap with the reasoning applicable to the inability to justify mandatory vaccination whether at the initiative of employers or as part of a PHO, however I have not repeated the reasons under each separate heading.
 Before turning to a consideration of these reasons, it is important to set the context with some information that is publicly available and should be uncontroversial:
a. Unlike many other vaccinations such as those used to stop the spread of tetanus, yellow fever and smallpox, COVID vaccinations are not designed to stop COVID. They are designed to reduce the symptoms of the virus, however a fully vaccinated person can contract and transmit COVID.
b. The science is clear in that COVID is less serious for those who are young and otherwise healthy compared to those who are elderly and/or who have co-morbidities. In other words, the risk of COVID is far greater for those who are elderly or have co-morbidities. Around 87% of those who have died with COVID in Australia are over 80 years old and had other pre-existing illnesses listed on their death certificates.
c. The World Health Organisation has stated that most people diagnosed with COVID will recover without the need for any medical treatment.
d. The vaccines are only provisionally approved for use in Australia and are accordingly still part of a clinical trial 20.
e. There are side effects to the COVID vaccines that are now known. That side effects exist is not a conspiracy theory.
f. The long-term effects of the COVID vaccines are unknown, and this is recognised by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia.
Consent is required for participation in clinical trials
 Consent is required for all participation in a clinical trial. Consent is necessary because people have a fundamental right to bodily integrity, that being autonomy and self-determination over their own body without unconsented physical intrusion. Voluntary consent for any medical treatment has been a fundamental part of the laws of Australia and internationally for decades.
It is legally, ethically and morally wrong to coerce a person to participate in a clinical trial.
 Coercion is not consent. Coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something using force or threats. Some have suggested that there is no coercion in threatening a person with dismissal and withdrawing their ability to participate in society if that person does not have the COVID vaccine. However, nothing could be further from the truth.  All COVID vaccines in Australia are only provisionally approved, and as such remain part of a clinical trial 21. This is not part of a conspiracy theory. It is a fact easily verifiable from the website of the TGA, Australia’s regulatory authority responsible for assessing and registering/approving all COVID vaccines before they can be used in Australia.
 The requirement for consent in this context is not new and should never be controversial. The Nuremburg Code (the Code), formulated in 1947 in response to Nazi doctors performing medical experiments on people during WWII, is one of the most important documents in the history of the ethics of medical research.
CAN COVID VACCINATIONS BE MANDATED ... ON HEALTH AND SAFETY GROUNDS?
 The short answer to this question, in almost every case, is NO !
 The fundamental starting point here is the answer to the question – what is the risk? All risk controls are (or should be) designed to address an identified risk. The risk needs to be a real risk and not a perceived risk. The real risk for employers is that a person who has COVID will spread COVID to others within the workplace.
 The risk of spreading COVID only arises with a person who has COVID. This should be apparent and obvious. There is no risk associated with a person who is unvaccinated and does not have COVID, notwithstanding the misleading statements by politicians that the unvaccinated are a significant threat to the vaccinated, supposedly justifying “locking out the unvaccinated from society” and denying them the ability to work.
 Critically, there is another alternative to vaccines to assist employers in meeting their WHS obligations, that being testing. Given there is no doubt that those who are fully vaccinated can catch and transmit the virus, testing (whether rapid antigen or otherwise) will provide employers with a level of comfort that a worker does not have COVID and therefore will not transmit COVID to others (that being the risk that is to be managed) in the workplace.
 Testing is now widely used around the world as a risk control for the spread of COVID. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot be widely used in Australia.
 Testing is arguably a better control measure compared to vaccines in meeting health and safety obligations.
 It is highly likely that the dismissal of an employee who fails to have the COVID vaccine will breach the Disability
Discrimination Act 1992 (DD Act). The DD Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person, including in
employment and in accessing services, because of a disability.
 The definition of disability in s.4 of the DD Act includes “the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness”. It includes a disability that presently exists, or previously existed but no longer exists, or may exist in the future, or is imputed to a person....”
 Research in the context of COVID-19 has shown that many who are ‘vaccine-hesitant’ are well educated, work in the health care industry and have questions about how effective the vaccines are in stopping transmission, whether they are safe to take during pregnancy, or if they affect fertility. A far safer and more democratic approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy, and therefore increasing voluntary vaccination uptake, lies in better education, addressing specific and often legitimate concerns that people may hold, and promoting genuine informed consent. It does not lie in censoring differing opinions or removing rights and civil liberties that are fundamental in a democratic nation. It certainly does not lie in the use of highly coercive, undemocratic and unethical mandates.
 The statements by politicians that those who are not vaccinated are a threat to public health and should be “locked out of society” and denied the ability to work are not measures to protect public health. They are not about public health and not justified because they do not address the actual risk of COVID. These measures can only be about punishing those who choose not to be vaccinated. If the purpose of the PHOs is genuinely to reduce the spread of COVID, there is no basis for locking out people who do not have COVID, which is easily established by a rapid antigen test. Conversely, a vaccinated person who contracts COVID should be required to isolate until such time as they have recovered.
 Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across a whole profession or industry regardless of the actual risk, fail the tests of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness. It is more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis and cannot be justified on health grounds. It is a lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should be soundly rejected by courts when challenged.
 All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in
Australia. It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the anthesis of our democratic way of life
and everything we value.
 Australians should also vigorously oppose the ongoing censorship of any views that question the current policies regarding COVID. Science is no longer science if it a person is not allowed to question it.
 Finally, all Australians, including those who hold or are suspected of holding “anti-vaccination sentiments”, are entitled to the protection of our laws, including the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act. In this regard, one can only hope that the Majority Decision is recognised as an anomaly and not followed by others.
VICE PRESIDENT + Appearances:n Mr J Pearce of counsel for the Appellant. Mr R Reitano of counsel for the Respondent. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR734301>
[SYDNEY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2021] FWCFB 6015 https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2021fwcfb6015.htm Pg36-50