Mass-murder and genocide, suckers!--what covid pretext (bio-weapon) and then poison vaxxes have accomplished, as in Australia, morons

[Apollonian]

Excess deaths in Australia off the charts following covid “vaccines” – highest in 80 years​

Thursday, March 09, 2023 by: Ethan Huff

Link: https://vaccinedeaths.com/2023-03-09-excess-deaths-australia-covid-vaccines-highest-level.html

(Natural News) One of the most “fully vaccinated” countries in the world for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) has now earned the title of also being the sickest and most death-prone society in the world.
That country is Australia, which now has an excess mortality rate that is greater than that of any other country in the world over the last 80 years – and by a longshot.
Australia’s “reward” for obeying the (mis)guidance of the World Health Organization (WHO) is an extra 174,000 deaths in 2022, which is 12 percent higher than what was predicted by the experts.
According to data from the Actuaries Institute, Australia’s excess death increase is the most substantial ever in recorded history.
Karen Cutter from the Institute’s Covid-19 mortality working group said that the current levels of death Down Under are “not within normal levels of fluctuation in non-pandemic times.”
“Firstly, mortality risk is higher subsequent to an acute Covid infection, and most Australians have now had Covid-19,” she said, adding that even the Institute believes the so-called “virus” played a direct role in all these deaths – including those that were not even directly attributed to “covid.”
(Related: Earlier figures from last fall showed a 63 percent birth rate reduction in Australia due to covid injections.)

U.K. residents similarly dying in excess due to widespread covid jab uptake​

While vaccine side effects were not explicitly cited as a reason for Australia’s increased mortality rates, it is obvious from the data and the timing of the spike that Aussies really started dying after the launch of Operation Warp Speed.

Australia was one of the first countries to comply with social distancing, masking, and later “vaccination” guidelines, earning praise from billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates who pat the country’s leaders on the back for imposing these harsh restrictions throughout the scamdemic.
Now, Aussies everywhere are developing jab-related health problems such as heart inflammation (i.e., myocarditis and pericarditis). The same goes for many fully jabbed residents of the United Kingdom who are similarly getting sick and dying in excess.
In 2022, the U.K. recorded nearly 40,000 excess deaths, according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS).
As always, the authorities want everyone to believe that all this death is because of “long covid,” a made-up excuse that serves as a cover for all the jab damage that continues to manifest.
“Ethical doctors are not baffled by this, and neither are the scientists,” one commenter wrote on a story about how doctors in both Australia and the U.K. are reportedly baffled by all this excess death.
“This was and is genocide, and all those administering and promoting the jab should be prosecuted for violating the Nuremberg Code and punished to the extreme.”
Another responded that it is unlikely any of these criminals against humanity will be punished in their own courts. It will likely take an international court or tribunal to deal with these monsters in the way they deserve.
“Australia is the most compliant country on earth,” suggested another. “The Aussie larrikins is a myth – ‘always the same, always the opposite.'”
“They have the highest prices paid on the planet for drugs, so they also have the best drug market on the planet. It’s the most heavily corrupted country with drug trafficking and money laundering, and the most heavily drugged youth especially on earth. In that sense, they’re ‘larrikins,’ BUT it’s all the wealthiest most well-respected members of the community who run the racket, and who have organized it to being the most expensive price point on earth – ‘privatized taxation without representation.'”
More of the latest news about dangerous and ineffective covid jabs can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources for this article include:
Newspunch.com
NaturalNews.com

 

[Apollonian]

The Corona Wars have Engulfed the Globe: The Naive Belief in Governmental Benevolence​

The COVID jab is killing us softly, and sometimes loud, and everywhere, and yet people who themselves have experienced the dangerous adverse effects of this agent cannot or will not connect the dots.​

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia
Global Research, April 23, 2023

Link: https://www.globalresearch.ca/naive-belief-governmental-benevolence/5816754

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Those who accepted lockdowns, virtuously donned their masks, and eagerly lined up for the jabs and the boosters – people who think that I’m crazy to suggest that the COVID measures adopted by New Zealand were as reprehensible as they were inefficacious – the people who have swallowed hook, line and sinker the lies of State over lo these many years – share one important characteristic, perhaps the one that defines their unwillingness to think for themselves.
They cannot bring themselves to believe that their governmental authorities are capable of evil.
You see, it’s that simple.
Despite a list of State atrocities over the lifespan of our human species that is nearly infinite, we here in the post-World War II West, refuse to countenance the idea of a murderous power elite masquerading as government for the good of all.
But how did such a conviction in the truthfulness of the State occur? How can so many be so certain of the unfailing goodness of the West?
Yes, this is a Western phenomenon – the advanced democratic, virtuous and egalitarian West of superior moral values, led by America. It is, furthermore, directly linked to the Second World War – and, in particular, to a myth fostered by the Western victors, which goes like this:
In genocidal Nazism, the most heinous and exceptional evil was concentrated. We who vanquished this evil are therefore good, and will always be good, regardless of our occasional peccadilloes. State-sponsored evil is a phenomenon of Nazi Germany, and it has been laid to rest.
America in the Fifties, when I was born, through the Seventies as I grew into myself, provided comfort, opportunity and even wealth for the lower and middle classes, factors that contributed to a feeling that life was good and that the country creating such an environment was also good.
When JFK was murdered by the CIA/Deep State of the time, most looked the other way and naively bought the fish tale of a lone marksman and a magic bullet.

When the Twin Towers – AND WTC Building 7, let’s not forget – collapsed at freefall speed into their footprints as pulverized rubble on 9/11, no amount of uncanny physics and just plain common sense and eyewitness reports of multiple explosions could unconvince a majority that a rag-tag group of fanatic hijackers guided by an Arab mastermind from a Middle Eastern cave were to blame.
The incident in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 that became the pretext for American escalation in Vietnam was as much of a lie as the Colin Powell’s 2003 assertion at the United Nations that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. How many lives were lost, how people were displaced, how much misery ensued as a result of these callous and willful deceptions?
You see, the American government could never be guilty of such heinous crimes, never. Other countries of the English-speaking West and most of Europe, though quick to expose Soviet criminality and the profligate depredations of Communist Mao, turned a blind eye to American State terrorism and murder, and refused to acknowledge the coterie of covert agencies engaged in secret destructive operations against their very own citizens.
So, here, and in our very now, a transnational terrorist and genocidal operation on a scale never yet seen – I am referring of course to the Corona Wars – has engulfed the globe. The COVID jab is killing us softly, and sometimes loud, and everywhere, and yet people who themselves have experienced the dangerous adverse effects of this agent cannot or will not connect the dots.
For example, a fully jabbed and boosted neighbor of mine recently developed a deep venous thrombosis and, two days later, a life-threatening pulmonary embolism. At the time not one medical practitioner queried the role of the jab as a causative or contributing factor, she informed me. A week later, however, her healthcare personnel had miraculously grown wiser and managed to come up with a theory: they blamed it on COVID, from which she had recovered months before. No surprise, I suppose. COVID, long or short or in-between, is the perfect fall-guy to take the rap for any jab-related malfeasance.
As I’ve written and spoken about many times before, good doctors here in New Zealand – who questioned the wisdom of universal inoculation, who offered treatments, who tailored their care to an individual’s needs, and who stuck to the necessity of informed consent – are being hounded, harassed and persecuted by a vacuous and corrupt medical council in league with a private organization based in Dallas, Texas – the Federation of State Medical Boards.
One exceptionally responsible and informed physician was recently put through the ordeal of a week-long Health Professionals Disciplinary Tribunal for the mortal sin of undermining public confidence in the Pfizer jab by discussing COVID prevention and treatment. Yes, you read that correctly.
Gaslighting, witch hunts – so it goes.
But allow me to return to my thesis. Since when did people fall lock, stock and barrel for the obvious deceptions of their overlords? And how, and why?
I grew up in an America full of promise – for its citizens at least. An avid hard-working soul could acquire a superb education without mortgaging his or her lifetime of labor. Gas was cheap, travel was easy and the open road could be a dream.
Psychologically speaking, the concentrated evil of the Holocaust, with the Nazi death camps and inconceivable horror, would become a convenient repository of all that was morally reprehensible, all that was bad, while our Good Leaders would ensure that we might live under their benevolent protective shield. Heck, even the nuclear incineration of two Japanese cities was consecrated as an act of merciful necessity.
On the long narrow road ahead how many of us will be left to mourn the fearful, the ignorant, the naive, or the just plain selfish who, nurtured in a transient era of Western abundance, sacrificed good sense to an illusion, refused to make a peep about the obvious, and in a cavalier ‘yep, yep’ created a society along the apartheid fault lines of vaccination?
Fear, ignorance, naivete, selfishness – these are the Horsemen of our New World Order apocalypse.
To fight them off we need a little courage, wit and love: it’s truly that simple.

 

[Apollonian]

The Australian gov’t is forcefully taking over a Catholic hospital because it is pro-life​

Link: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...l-because-it-is-pro-life/?utm_source=top_news

---

A recent government inquiry into abortion and 'reproductive choice' described Calvary Hospital in Canberra as 'problematic… due to an overriding religious ethos.'

Archbishop of Canberra Christopher ProwseCatholic Voice Archdiocese Canberra / YouTube

---

David James
Sat May 27, 2023 - 12:50 pm EDT

Listen to this article

(LifeSiteNews) — In a move that points to increasing political hostility in Australia towards Catholic and other Christian institutions, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government has moved to mandatorily acquire Canberra’s Catholic-run Calvary Hospital.
The takeover required the introduction of a bill, a change in the law – an unprecedented move in Australia’s history.
The bill stipulates that the ACT government will move into the premises on July 3 and take over the operation of the hospital. This will occur before any compensation is agreed to or paid.
The extreme move and hasty implementation – designed to keep public debate to a minimum – is taking place because the Catholic-owned hospital has a history of being pro-life and of not supporting euthanasia.

A recent ACT government inquiry into abortion and reproductive choice described Calvary Hospital as “problematic… due to an overriding religious ethos.”  The inquiry issued warnings about an “ethically fraught dependence” on the Sisters of the Little Company of Mary for provision of health services.
The bureaucrats and politicians rely on muted words like “problematic” and neutral phrases (in the press release) like “the evolving needs of the ACT community” to create the impression that this is merely an administrative decision.
This is belied by the fact that it was necessary to resort to hasty and unusual moves in the legislature to make the acquisition possible. Such political and bureaucratic deceptions are as routine as they are tedious and insulting.
A more accurate picture was provided by the leader of the federal opposition, Peter Dutton, who said that he was “just not aware of an action like it elsewhere in the country or, frankly, around the world, where a government has taken a decision based on their opposition to a religion to compulsorily acquire a hospital in these circumstances a facility that’s working well and in the greater public interest and good in a local community and just for ideological reasons.”
Father Tony Percy from ACT’s Catholic diocese described the move as “basically religious bigotry writ large,” saying it sets a dangerous precedent that could “see other Christian-owned properties ‘acquired’ in Soviet-style takeovers.” He said the takeover could create a precedent for other governments to seize Christian facilities like schools and aged care facilities.
The Archbishop of Canberra, Christopher Prowse, protested against the “shocking news” in a letter.

This extraordinary and completely unnecessary government intervention could set the scene for future acquisitions of any faith-based health facility, or, indeed, any faith-based enterprise including education or social welfare. I am also concerned that this action, based on obsessive government control, would deprive future Catholic generations in Canberra of the choice of hospital care based on the ethos of our cherished Catholic faith.

Rob Norman, the Australian Christian Lobby’s ACT director, described the move as an “authoritarian decision… reminiscent of a Soviet style takeover of non-Government assets.” He said the ACT government has “no tolerance for religious convictions that oppose the will of the State.”
There are two reasons why the move poses a threat to the fabric of Australian society.
One is the lack of respect for Australia’s history. Many of the hospitals and institutions of care in Australia, including Calvary, were established by the Catholic Church without government assistance. This exemplary record of helping the sick and the disadvantaged is widely ignored: not so much religious bigotry as convenient omission. Thus the ACT government can treat Calvary as if it is government property.
The second, more telling issue, is that there is a widely-held view in Australia that the nation has a legally enforced separation of Church and state. It is not true, or at least only partly true.
Under section 116 of the Constitution there is a guarantee of the Freedom of Religion but these prohibitions only apply to the Commonwealth government, not to the States, which are free to discriminate on the basis of religion.
The ACT is not a state, but a territory, so theoretically it falls under the control of the federal government. But the left-wing Federal Labor government is unlikely to do anything.
The message to Australian Christians is that if they hold to their moral positions, they can expect to be considered hostile to the state.
Kevin Andrews, a former federal defense minister, writes that Australia’s domestic law contains very little protection for freedom of religion. “This is compounded by the incorporation through a series of Commonwealth, state and territory statutes of one universally recognized freedom – against discrimination – into domestic law, but the exclusion of others, including freedom of religion.”
The implication is that in Australia, discrimination against some groups, especially those deemed “minorities,” is aggressively outlawed, but prejudice against religious groups, particularly Christians, is not considered much of a problem. The move against Calvary Hospital is a clear indication of the consequences of that inequality.

 

[Apollonian]

The Tech Giants Whose GOAL Is Human Extinction​

by Selwyn Duke June 13, 2023

Link: https://thenewamerican.com/the-tech-giants-whose-goal-is-human-extinction/?mc_cid=5fad622e04

metamorworks/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Article audio sponsored by The John Birch Society

In the year 2000, Sun Microsystems cofounder Bill Joy wrote an essay provocatively titled “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Despite being published April 1, it was no joke; and despite its 11,000-word length, it would go viral. The reason why was encapsulated in its subhead. To wit:
“Our most powerful 21st-century technologies — robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech — are threatening to make humans an endangered species.”
Now, almost a quarter way through the 21st century, warnings that such technology — artificial intelligence (AI), to be precise — could spell man’s doom are everywhere. A prime example is a May 30 statement from research organization Center for AI Safety reading, “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”
But here’s the kicker:
According to website Salon, some signatories to the above statement actually welcome homo sapiens’ extinction.
Oh, it’s not that they’re like serial killer Carl Panzram, who once reportedly said, “I wish all mankind had one neck so I could choke it!” (though one or two might be). Rather, some tech figures define “extinction” differently than we do — and they only fear the “wrong” kind.
To grasp this, understand that at issue is a movement (“religion” may be a better description) that has been called TESCREALism and which involves a group of ideologies termed the “TESCREAL bundle.” As Salon explains:

The term is admittedly clunky, but the concept couldn’t be more important, because this bundle of overlapping movements and ideologies has become hugely influential among the tech elite. And since society is being shaped in profound ways by the unilateral decisions of these unelected oligarchs, the bundle is thus having a huge impact on the world more generally.
The acronym stands for “transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism and longtermism.” That’s a mouthful, but the essence of TESCREALism — meaning the worldview that arises from this bundle — is simple enough: at its heart is a techno-utopian vision of the future in which we re-engineer humanity, colonize space, plunder the cosmos, and establish a sprawling intergalactic civilization full of trillions and trillions of “happy” people, nearly all of them “living” inside enormous computer simulations. In the process, all our problems will be solved, and eternal life will become a real possibility.

Of course, the promise of “eternal life” sounds quintessentially religious, and it’s clear why secular people, who don’t believe in an afterlife, would find the promise of it appealing. They’re also “just” the latest in a long line of utopians. They’re not like Robert Owen, however, whose socialist-like endeavors failed in just one small early-19th-century commune; or atheist “reverend” Jim Jones, who orchestrated one late-’70s mass suicide; or even the Soviets, who directly controlled only one country. These are, as Salon stated, tech oligarchs who are shaping what will likely control, whole or in part, our future: AI. In fact, claims Salon, the aforementioned Center for AI Safety gets 90 percent of its funding from the TESCREAList community.
The point here, naysayers take note, is not whether you think these techno-utopians could actually pull off their grand, fantastic vision; it’s that with the technological power they’ll birth, their failure could be as destructive as their success.

This is staggering, too, when considering what they fancy “success”: creating a superior “posthuman” race — a new species — that supplants us on Earth (and beyond). They have expressed this aim, too. For example, relates Salon, “As the TESCREAList Toby Ord writes in his 2020 book ‘The Precipice,’ ‘forever preserving humanity as it is now may also squander our legacy, relinquishing the greater part of our potential,’ adding that ‘rising to our full potential for flourishing would likely involve us being transformed into something beyond the humanity of today.’”
Likewise, Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom “asserts that ‘the permanent foreclosure of any possibility of … transformative change of human biological nature may itself constitute an existential catastrophe,’” Salon also informs.
This is the uber-high-tech version of early 19th-century eugenics, out of which “transhumanism” (desire to transcend humanity), not surprisingly, grew. And this brings us to the TESCREALists’ conception of “good” and “bad” human extinction. Salon lists three kinds relevant here:

• Terminal extinction: This is simply your grandfather’s extinction, where all humans disappear.
• Final extinction: All humans disappear without leaving a successor.
• Normative extinction: Humans disappear while leaving successors that lack an “important” quality, such as consciousness.

It is only the last two that the TESCREALists fear. And people who believe machines could never become conscious should note that, theoretically, possession of such a quality by competing intelligent entities is perhaps unnecessary for our supplantation (this would be an instance of normative extinction).
So what form could such a successor take? Salon presents the example of using genetic engineering to fundamentally alter humans, who then become posthuman and integrate technology into their bodies (e.g., connecting their brains to the Internet via interfaces); they also could embrace “life-extension” technologies that could yield immortality.
Whatever form the “new man (machine?)” could take, TESCREALists believe “they have a responsibility to usher this new form of intelligence into the world,” as journalist Ezra Klein recently put it. In other words, they play God with the approval of their own consciences.
And that they pursue their aims without believing in God may be what’s most scary. In fact, they use terms such as “good” and “better” — as in the “common good” and a “better world” — without first precisely defining what “good” is or recognizing that there can be no such thing as objective good without the divine. It’s reminiscent of when G.K. Chesterton, critiquing this relativist confusion in his 1905 book Heretics, wrote of how moderns would emphasize the “need” for education, progress, and liberty without first “settling what is good.” Likewise, the type of people who today would respond to unwelcome moral correction with “Who’s to say what the ‘truth’ is?” or “Don’t impose your values on me!” are now claiming they can create AI that will have just the “right” values.
This is truly frightening because, after all, how can any type of advanced artificial intelligence ever be controlled by natural stupidity?

 

[Apollonian]

Australian Senate Votes Down Excess Death Probe a Third Time​

BY REBEKAH BARNETT
7 FEBRUARY 2024 3:13 PM

Link: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/07/australian-senate-votes-down-excess-death-probe-a-third-time/





The Australian Senate voted against an inquiry into the causes of the nation’s high excess mortality today. This is the third time the Senate has voted against investigating excess deaths, after rejecting two previous motions last year.
Australia has recorded more deaths than expected in the past several years, with some states experiencing up to 17% excess mortality. This trend is ongoing, with the latest reporting from the ABS estimating 12,377 excess deaths for the first three quarters of 2023, 9.9% above the expected baseline.
SOURCE
Australia’s peak actuarial body, the Actuaries Institute, attributes many of these excess deaths to Covid. This is contested, but even so, at least half of Australia’s excess mortality remains unexplained.
Earlier today, Senator Ralph Babet of the United Australia Party tabled a motion proposing that the issue of excess mortality in Australia be referred to a committee for an inquiry and report.
The Noes had it 35:30, with Labour, the Greens, the Jacqui Lambie Network and independent Lydia Thorpe all voting to reject the motion.
The Liberals, the Nationals, the Country Liberal Party, the United Australia Party, One Nation and independent David Pocock voted in favour of the motion.

View the full vote breakdown here.
Senator Babet has previously tabled two unsuccessful motions to generate inquiry into Australia’s excess deaths, both on March 23rd 2023 (see Hansard record here).
One motion proposed the formation of a dedicated committee garnered only four votes in favour (Ralph Babet, One Nation’s Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, and Liberal Alex Antic, who crossed the floor). A second motion proposing a parliamentary debate on excess mortality was narrowly defeated 30:29.
Today’s motion differed in that it proposed that the matter of excess mortality be referred to the already existing Community Affairs References Committee for further investigation.
Labour Senator Katy Gallagher, who represents the Health portfolio in the Senate, stated prior to the vote:

The Government does not support this motion. The ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics] is the definitive authority of mortality statistics and data in Australia and provides regular publications… This data is published online and available to everyone.

This is accurate. However, the ABS does not speculate as to why more Australians are dying of certain illnesses at greater or lesser rates.
Seeking an answer to this question, the Australian Medical Professionals Society initiated its own investigation last year into Australia’s excess mortality. Every federal politician was invited to attend a presentation in Canberra, and the inquiry’s findings were published in a book, Too Many Dead: An Inquiry into Australia’s Excess Mortality, which was also distributed to federal politicians.
AMPS Secretary Kara Thomas says of today’s vote:

It is devastating to see the Government again vote against finding out what is causing Australia’s sustained excess mortality, but we are glad to see the Coalition has been receptive to the AMPS Inquiry’s findings, and that it is interested in pursuing further investigation.

The AMPS book focuses particularly on the evidence for iatrogenesis (i.e., harms inflicted by Australia’s medical response to Covid) and failures in pharmacovigilance.
Additionally, in submissions to an inquiry into Terms of Reference for a Covid Royal Commission, experts including economists, legal advocates and mental health professionals highlighted the potential for harms to health arising from other Covid policies, including lockdowns, isolation, loss of employment, loss of autonomy and increased stress.
Speaking in support of the AMPS independent inquiry last year, Senator Babet stated: “We are seeing too many excess, unexplained deaths in our nation every month. This is a matter of life and death and should be our top priority.”
In 2020, the people in charge shut the country down to save lives. Every single Covid-related death was meticulously documented in regular reports produced by state and territory health departments, and announced by Premiers in regular press briefings. TV news stations ran ticker counts.
Yet for the thousands of Australians who have since died unexpectedly for unknown reasons, the people in charge have shown little concern or motivation to investigate.

 

[Apollonian]

Around 25% of political donations received by Australia’s four biggest parties are untraceable​

February 24, 2024 7:33 am by CWR

Link: https://citizenwatchreport.com/arou...tralias-four-biggest-parties-are-untraceable/

[vid at site link, above]

via naturalnews:

Around a quarter of all political donations received by major political parties in Australia from 2022 to 2023 could not be traced back to specific donors.
This is according to a report from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), which found that between 21 percent to 27 percent of donations and other receipts to the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens came from unnamed sources.

Untraceable donations to these four largest political parties amounted to A$56.8 million ($37.06 million). This is down from the so-called “dark money” recorded during the election season ending in May 2022, when the AEC recorded A$90 million ($58.72 million) in untraceable donations.
According to Australian political donation laws, parties are only required to declare the source of donations and other payments that were given above a certain threshold, which is currently set at AU$15,200 ($9,916). (Related: Australian government report warns against the potential THREATS of AI.)
The Liberal Party received the most in untraceable donations at A$25.2 million ($16.44 million) followed by the Labor Party at A$22.4 million ($14.61 million). The Greens and Nationals respectively got A$6.2 million ($4.04 million) and A$3 million ($1.96 million) in untraceable donations.
See also She promises no harm will come to you or your company as long as you have the correct political leanings...

Lack of transparency a pressing issue in Australian politics​

According to Bill Brown, democracy and accountability program director for the Canberra-based think tank The Australia Institute, some of the data from the AEC is 18 months old, highlighting how the situation regarding transparency and integrity in Australian politics and how dark money continues to flow into parties continues to be a pressing issue.
“These lags and other loopholes make it difficult to see how politicians and political parties are being funded, and by whom,” he said. “With Parliament resuming next week, this is a wake-up call that 2024 is the last chance for meaningful democratic reform ahead of the 2025 election.”
Support for tougher donation disclosure laws is mixed. An interim report from parliament’s joint standing committee on electoral matters backed legislation that would lower the cap on political donations and lower the threshold for mandatory disclosures of donations to AU$1,000 ($652), and offer real-time donation disclosures.

These measures were backed by the governing Labor Party, the Greens and several independent members of parliament (MP). But the federal Liberal Party and Nationals opposed the measure, with Liberal MP James Stevens characterizing the proposal as an attempt to “financially gerrymander” elections to give Labor – which gets a lot of its support from unions – an advantage and said that the Liberal Party would resist it “tooth and nail.”
See also Alarming situation in Brazil: Bolsonaro's passport seized, cabinet members arrested, and political opponents targeted in probe over 2022 protests.

But Michael Yabsley, a Liberal member of the New South Wales Parliament, backed the measure. He noted that he also wants the federal government to support tougher enforcement of donation rules and harsher penalties for rulebreakers.
“There are penalties in the form of custodial services that pertain to a lot of forms of white-collar crime,” he pointed out. “And I can’t think of anything more important than preserving the integrity of the democratic system. If someone is stupid enough to say, ‘OK, we’ve worked out a way to get $500,000 to the Liberal Party or the Labor Party,’ but then they see that the downside of doing that is seven years in the slammer, they might think twice about doing that.”
Visit Rigged.news for similar stories about corruption during elections.

Watch this short clip discussing how Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is partying with other world leaders rather than addressing issues plaguing Australians. [see site link, above, top]

Sources include:
TheEpochTimes.com
TheGuardian.com
Brighteon.com

 

[Apollonian]

Vaccine Mandates Ruled ‘UNLAWFUL’ By Australia’s Supreme Court​

by Jamie White
March 4th 2024, 3:17 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/vaccine-mandates-ruled-unlawful-by-australias-supreme-court/

Queensland's Police Commissioner and Director-General of Health ignored other possible solutions to reduce infections, justice rules.

The vaccine mandates imposed on Queensland police and ambulance workers in 2021 were unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Justice Glenn Martin on Tuesday found the COVID vaccine mandate issued by Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll in December 2021 had violated the Human Rights Act.

Martin also lambasted Director-General of Queensland Health Dr. John Wakefield for imposing a similarly unlawful vaccine mandate.
“Neither the Commissioner nor Dr Wakefield gave close attention to the possible range of solutions. Each was presented with a proposal for mandatory vaccination with little in the way of well-developed critiques of alternative means of reducing illness and infection,” Martin stated in the decision.
The Commissioner and the Director-General’s justifications for the workplace vaccination mandates were also “taken out of context” and “not supported by the evidence,” Martin stated.
https://www.infowarsstore.com/turbo...tm_medium=banner&utm_content=turboforcebanned
The landmark decision by the court could lead to more lawsuits and similar rulings in the future.
From the Brownstone Institute:

The decision, which resolved three lawsuits brought by law firms Alexander Law and Sibley Lawyers, is the “tip of the iceberg,” said Bond University associate law professor Wendy Bonyton.

Prof Bonyton told The Australian, “There are other cases, based on similar grounds, similarly challenging the legitimacy of directions given during the pandemic. This one is interesting because it is the first one to go through… There will be more of these cases to come.”
Australian businessman and founder of the United Australia Party, Clive Palmer, who reportedly contributed between $2.5 to $3 million towards funding the lawsuits involving 74 police officers, civilian staff and paramedics, said he is considering further legal action following yesterday’s win.
“We could look at the class action for the ambulance workers and the police workers who have been subjected to harassment by their colleagues at the police department on the direction of the government to try to drop this case,” he told the press outside the Brisbane Supreme Court after the decision was handed down.

“This decision will force future employers and Government officials to properly consider human rights when implementing vaccine directions in future, at least in Queensland where there is a Human Rights Act which obligates them to do so,” said human rights lawyer Peter Fam.
But Fam cautioned that the ruling leaves out an “ominous” caveat that the mandate would likely have been declared lawful if the Commissioner had properly considered human rights advice.
“They won because the Commissioner did not appropriately consider the human rights advice she received. However, the Court also found that although each of the directions limited the workers’ rights to full, free and informed consent, (under Section 17 of the Human Rights Act), the limit was reasonable in all the circumstances,” Fam said.
“So, if the Commissioner could have proved that she had considered the advice she received regarding human rights, her workplace vaccination directives would likely have been considered lawful,” he added.
In other words, the vaccine mandates themselves did not violate human rights, but the directives to implement them were issued unlawfully.
Despite vaccine mandates dropping in 2023, Queensland Health has continued to discipline and even fire healthcare workers as recently as January 2024 for failing to comply with vaccine directives.

---

 

[Apollonian]

"Not About Freedom Of Expression": Aussie Politicians Unite Against Elon Musk's X​

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, APR 22, 2024 - 08:40 PM
Authored by Monica O'Shea via The Epoch Times,

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...ussie-politicians-unite-against-elon-musks-x/

Elon Musk’s X is facing strong criticism from both the centre-left Labor Party and the centre-right Liberal-National Coalition in Australia amid a legal challenge against the country’s online content tsar.


Mr. Musk labelled Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant (a former Twitter employee), the “Australian censorship commissar,” after she issued an order to X to take down videos related to the alleged stabbing of a Christian bishop.
X says it had removed all posts domestically, but the commissioner’s order calls for the removal of content around the world.
X is planning to challenge this in court, and said the posts did not violate its rules on “violent speech” - content that incites or glorifies violence.

Shadow Minister Says Musk Being ‘Irresponsible’​

However, the Liberal Party’s Shadow Foreign Minister Simon Birmingham called X’s contention a “completely ridiculous and preposterous argument.”

“The type of standards that we expect in everyday life that we expect in other forms of media should be able to be applied to the online world as well,” Mr. Birmingham said on ABC News Breakfast on April 22.
“The idea that it is censorship to say that imagery of a terrorist attack, of a stabbing incident should not be able to be broadcast in an unfiltered way for all to see—children to access and otherwise—is an insulting and offensive argument.”

The senator also argued Mr. Musk’s argument was “irresponsible” given the impact of the social media posts on potential terrorists.
“It is also an irresponsible one when you consider the implications that can have for inspiring potentially future terrorists, for creating discord and disharmony in communities, and driving people further apart when such images are manipulated or used with propaganda or other information,” he said.

Labor Government Paints Musk As ‘Bully’​

This comes after Labor’s Health Minister Mark Butler said the government would not be “bullied” by Mr. Musk.
“And can I say this: Australia is not going to be bullied by Elon Musk, or any other tech billionaire, in our commitment to making sure that social media is a safe space,” Mr. Butler said during a press conference.
Mr. Butler said if Mr. Musk wanted to fight the fine in court, the government was up for it because they were determined to keep “social media safe.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he found it “extraordinary X chose not to comply.”

“We know, I think overwhelmingly, Australians want misinformation and disinformation to stop. This isn’t about freedom of expression,” he told reporters.
“This is about the dangerous implications that can occur when things that are simply not true, that everyone knows is not true, are replicated and weaponised in order to cause division, and in this case, to promote negative statements.”

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek called Mr. Musk an “egotistical billionaire.”
“It’s more important for him to have his way than to respect the victims of the crimes that are being shown on social media and to protect our Australian community from the harmful impact of showing this terrible stuff on social media,” she said on Sunrise.
“We need to keep Australians safe from this terrible stuff on social media. And Elon Musk doesn’t dictate to the Australian government what we are doing here domestically with our laws.”

Opposition Switches Gears, Will Back ‘Misinformation’ Laws​

Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton agreed there was a case for “tougher action” against social media companies during an interview with ABC Insiders on April 22.

“No question at all, and I think there’s a bipartisan position in relation to this. We know that the companies—and we’ve seen some of the comments from Elon Musk overnight—they see themselves above the law,” Mr. Dutton claimed.
“The Australian law here should apply equally in the real world as it does online.”

Mr. Dutton pointed out social media companies turnover billions of dollars of revenue in the Australian economy and indicated the laws should apply to them within the country.
“I think there’s a red herring in a sense here. When Elon Musk says that there’s not extraterritorial reach—that is the Australian law can’t apply to other parts of the world—I’m sure that’s the case. But in terms of the content, which is displayed here, or broadcast here, well the Australian law does apply,” Mr. Dutton said.
Mr. Dutton also indicated the Opposition would support Labor’s misinformation and disinformation laws, despite the Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman being very critical of the law in September.
“Yeah, we are, and happy to have a look at anything the government puts forward, as we’ve said over the last week, with the horrendous scenes that we’ve seen.”

What Did X Do?​

X received a global takedown order from Australia’s eSafety commissioner to remove posts following the knife attack on a Christian bishop during a livestream service.
However, X says the posts did not violate the platform’s rules on “violent speech,” and revealed it had received a demand from the eSafety commissioner to remove all posts globally—or face a daily fine of $785,000 (US$506,000).
“X believes that eSafety’s order was not within the scope of Australian law and we complied with the directive pending a legal challenge,” the platform posted.
“While X respects the right of a country to enforce its laws within its jurisdiction, the eSafety commissioner does not have the authority to dictate what content X’s users can see globally. We will robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court.”

On April 16, the eSafety commissioner confirmed it had issued legal notices to X and Meta to remove material within 24 hours.
The commissioner said notices related to material that depicted “gratuitous or offence violence with a high degree of impact or detail.”
“While the majority of mainstream social media platforms have engaged with us, I am not satisfied enough is being done to protect Australians from this most extreme and gratuitous violent material circulating online,” Ms. Inman Grant said.
“That is why I am exercising my powers under the Online Safety Act to formally compel them to remove it.”

MORE GEOPOLITICAL STORIES ON ZEROHEDGE​

"That's Concerning": US Indo-Pacific Commander Warns China Becoming More Aggressive As Economic Recovery "Failing"​

Wave Goodbye To Another Set Of Freedoms With The New Digital ID​

Hezbollah Launches Deepest Attack Into Israel Since War's Start, On Passover​

​