Last month, I covered the news of West Australian police officer Ben Falconer’s vaccine mandate challenge loss in the Supreme Court. I also interviewed Irish comedy writer turned women’s rights activist while he was Down Under touring his book with the Free Speech Union of Australia.
On the face of it, these two are worlds apart. Ben campaigns for choice in vaccination. Graham campaigns against gender ideology and for women’s sex-based rights.
But they have two things in common. One is censorship. The other is transhumanism.
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).
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?
I asked Graham this question and I’ll 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’m working on in the background).
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.
I’ll explain, using Ben’s case as example.
Ben argued that WA police have a right to bodily integrity in the workplace. However, WA law says that if it’s an emergency, they do not. Accordingly, the Court decided that the Police Commissioner’s order that police officers must undergo vaccination as a condition of work was ‘lawful.’
Earlier this year, the Queensland Supreme Court ruled that the Queensland Police Commissioner’s direction for mandatory Covid vaccination was ‘unlawful’ under the Human Rights Act, 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.
Other vaccine mandate related cases in Australia have similarly been won on technicalities, where the plaintiff has challenged not the mandate, but the way the mandate was implemented. The case of teacher Diane Dawking for example, or the recent win of data analyst Xin Yin Ooi (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.1
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.
This applies all the time, by the way, not just in emergencies. Under Australia’s No Jab, No Pay/No Play legislation, family assistance payments and access to childcare services are withheld from parents of children who are not vaccinated according to the National Immunisation Program schedule.
These laws didn’t appear out of nowhere. Some people apparently thought they were a good idea. What upstream cultural influences influenced the thinking of the people who created such laws in the first place?
The underlying belief, written into law, is that citizens are deficient or unfit without the intervention of a state-mandated medical procedure.
Our culture has undergone a profound paradigm shift from thinking of the natural human state as the default, to a transhumanist conception where the human subject must undergo medical intervention – be it vaccination, sex reassignment surgery or otherwise – in order to achieve default status.
The transhumanist default state is sometimes described as the ‘true’ self (as in the case of gender and sex transitioners), or in terms indicating the person’s fitness to participate in society and the economy (e.g.: ‘fully vaxxed’.) The natural human state is deficient, or even dangerous within this paradigm.
Furthermore, interventions such as cross sex hormones, sex reassignment surgery and mandated vaccination don’t interfere with the integrity of the human subject, or merely better them. Rather, the interventions complete the person. This is an important distinction.
This is why our law makers and judiciary find it reasonable and justified to violate the human right of bodily integrity as regards vaccination policy. This is why they have created laws that allow men to identify as literal women (and vice versa), or that prohibit parents and professionals from encouraging gender questioning children to hold off on ‘gender affirming care’ (a euphemism for a range of interventions including chest binders, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and eventually, surgeries).
Subscribers, please feel free to riff with further thoughts if any come to mind as you read this, and I look forward to sharing my Graham Linehan interview with you soon!
Sources:
A recent notable exception is the case of Victorian Police employee Simon Shears, who successfully challenged disciplinary action brought against him over his vaccination status.
Author
Leave a Reply