On the face of it, these two are worlds apart. Ben campaigns for choice in vaccination. Graham campaigns against gender ideology and for women\u2019s sex-based rights.<\/p>\n
But they have two things in common. One is censorship. The other is transhumanism.<\/p>\n
The censorship aspect is obvious. Both men have been cast as pariahs by media and institutions and have lost livelihoods for stating their principled beliefs (though they are seen as heroes in their small activist circles).<\/p>\n
But why are both of these topics, which seem fairly unrelated apart perhaps from the big pharma\/medical industrial complex profiteering angle, subject to such fierce censorship?<\/p>\n
I asked Graham this question and I\u2019ll share his thoughts in the full interview write up, which I plan to publish in the coming weeks (progress is slow due to an unusually high number of big stories and investigations over the past fortnight and the week ahead, as well as another important project I\u2019m working on in the background).<\/p>\n
But here I will share my thoughts, as I have been mulling on the overlap between the issues of gender ideology and vaccination policy. I think a major influencing factor is transhumanism.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2dabc8e6-3a45-4bfd-b002-9158c1c3000a_1384x312.png)
<\/picture>\n<\/div>I\u2019ll explain, using Ben\u2019s case as example.<\/p>\n
Ben argued that WA police have a right to bodily integrity in the workplace. However, WA law says that if it\u2019s an emergency, they do not. Accordingly, the Court decided that the Police Commissioner\u2019s order that police officers must undergo vaccination as a condition of work was \u2018lawful.\u2019<\/p>\n
Earlier this year, the Queensland Supreme Court ruled that the Queensland Police Commissioner\u2019s direction for mandatory Covid vaccination was \u2018unlawful\u2019 under the Human Rights Act<\/a>, but only because the Police Commissioner had not gone through all the necessary box ticking exercises before implementing the mandate. In his decision, Justice Glenn Martin said that impinging on human rights was justified given the emergency, if only it had been done in the right way.<\/p>\n Other vaccine mandate related cases in Australia have similarly been won on technicalities, where the plaintiff has challenged not the mandate, but the way<\/em> the mandate was implemented. The case of teacher Diane Dawking<\/a> for example, or the recent win of data analyst Xin Yin Ooi<\/a> (whose story I hope to cover soon!). Where cases have challenged the mandates head on, they generally lose, as in the high-profile case of Kassam vs. Hazzard<\/a>.1<\/a><\/p>\n So you see that, in Australia, our laws allow the state to civilly conscript the bodies of citizens to undergo vaccination (even if experimental and without proper safety data) in any circumstance where the state decides it is warranted, in exchange for the continuance of civil and human rights.<\/p>\n