Stephanie Maureen Ryan, an Australian politician, listen to her parliamentary speech against the madness of the COVID lunacy; this lady has stones for all the male politicians, huge praise for her!
Stephanie Maureen Ryan, an Australian politician, listen to her parliamentary speech against the madness of the COVID lunacy; this lady has stones for all the male politicians, huge praise for her!
Pure theatre, I count six, possibly seven MP’s in the chamber. The bloke behind her in the fecking mask (in the empty chamber) clearly couldn’t give a toss as he was too busy texting to even listen. This is bollocks. Pure bollocks. They don’t care.
The coup d'état is near complete, and it's global. By now many will have seen today's superb video from Book of Ours covering Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova's work, showing how this has effectively already been achieved by hidden decree in the United States:
Plus, the renegade Australian state and national governments 'need' legislation that will enable them to put all those concentration camps they built to 'good use'.
Damn shame she had no on working with her, way to hard for one to stand up to absolute corruption by ones self. I hate to hear what they did to her for her to back off.
Ryan speaking to a virtually empty chamber (how disrespectful is that to those that voted for her) did her best but the Bill was past and Ryan, who gave notice in July, is no longer in parliament. I suspect, next time we hear from her, she’ll be in another State like the other Victorians who are awake.
What a dreadful shame that the Liberals had Morrison as a leader at a time when these State based tyrants were blatantly destroying Federal Constitutional principles. This Bill is not lawful under the Constitution but with Labor now in Federally, it will stand and destroy democracy in Victoria (WA, NT, QLD, TAS, NSW and SA, in that order, will follow in domino effect).
Liberals it is already past time to do the right thing!
Same in the UK when the MP (Andrew Bridgen) spoke out in the Houses of Parliament on the same topic. There were maybe 6 people present, of whom maybe one was actually awake .😡
ANDREW BRIDGEN: In 2015 a commentary by Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet, suggested that possibly half of the published medical literature may simply be untrue. He wrote that science has taken a turn towards darkness and asked who is going to take the first step to clean up the system. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that first step could start this evening with this debate. It starts here and the Vaccine Minister and the government ensuring in the first instance that there needs to be an immediate and complete suspension of any more covid vaccines and their use of mRNA technology.
Madam Deputy Speaker, silence on this issue is more contagious than the virus itself. And I'd also, now, so should courage be. And I would implore all the scientists, the medics, the nurses, and those in the media who know the truth that the harm these vaccines are causing to our people, to speak out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we've already sacrificed in my view far too many of our citizens on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed. Last week the MHRA authorized these experimental vaccines for use on children as young as 6 months. A report which I've already quoted in a Westminster Hall debate some weeks ago, by the journal of American Medical Associations studying the effects of the covid-19 mRNA vaccine on children under 5 years of age show that 1 in 200 had an adverse event which resulted in hospitalization and had symptoms that lasted longer than 90 days. As the data clearly shows, to anyone who wants to look at it, the mRNA vaccines, they're not safe, they're not effective, and they're not necessary. I implore the government to halt their use immediately and, as I have demonstrated and the data clearly shows, the government's corrupt policy on the mRNA vaccines is on the wrong side of medical ethics, it's on the wrong side of scientific data, and ultimately, Madam Deputy Speaker, it will be on the wrong side of history.
And this was 12months ago, Australia is not the place it used to be, people are happy to be slaves and do not care about rights, it's horrible now. The pandemic bill passed because of 1 X senator who took the cash before losing his seat just a few months ago, we protested every week for months about this bill, over 600,000 people on one day, yet MSM branded us antivaxers, and said only 10,000 attended, media is captured by government and all the senators are captured with bribes and money so they keep their benefits. The state rules, and that is it. As I said, too many weak pathetic Australians do not realise what they are doing by staying silent ,they simply do not give a rat's arse, it's sad to be Australian now and it makes me sick in the guts every time I think about it.
Most are dying and based on the vax numbers beimg reported, if to be believed, shows that aost no one will be alive in a few years, based on the clinical teial data being released from Pfizer, the repeat serial felon rx company that has paid billions in damages.
They will get rid of her, she is to TRUTHFUL and has principles... There are no more men in that chamber, just cowards, paid off and sheep and part of the group doing it...
STEPH RYAN: I feel sick that we're having this debate. I don't think there has ever been a piece of legislation to come before this chamber that I have been more vehemently opposed to. I feel sick that Labor MPs are not brave enough to stand up and speak the truth about this legislation. I don't care if you think that Daniel Andrews' handling of this pandemic has been infallible. I don't care if you stand with Dan. I don't care if you think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The truth is that this legislation is about handing the Premier and the Health Minister the ability to rule by decree. Is that power that you want to hand to every future Premier and Health Minister? Doesn't matter what you think about Daniel Andrews. This is not even about the current government. This is about the management of pandemics but also the ability to trigger these powers forever into the future. It's about the regime that it has the potential to set up here in this state. That's what is at stake here. Is that what we want as Victorians?
This bill allows the government to declare a pandemic in Victoria and make orders that lock down the state even when there is no presence of disease here. Yes, the Chief Officer needs to publish his or her advice within 14 days of those orders being made, but that advice, even if it contradicts the order made by the Premier or the Health Minister, doesn't invalidate those orders if it doesn't support it.
The bill gives the government the right to make orders on the ability of attributes— things like race, gender, sexuality. How on earth can people support that? How on earth can members opposite support that? It is extraordinary.
It offers no rights of appeal to courts that people who are incarcerated. It sets up a penalty regime of fines that would see an individual face more than $90,000. That would send most ordinary Victorians to jail. Who can afford a $90,000 fine? And the government says, "Don't worry. That's just about the worst breaches." Well, that is not what the legislation says. It's extraordinary [inaudible] this figure. And I cannot believe that those opposite are not brave enough to stand up and speak out about it. I imagine that the member for Altona is going to speak on this legislation. She has been the Attorney-General; she has been a lawyer. She cannot possibly agree with this. She can't.
Where are your values?
Speaker, there is no parliamentary oversight of these powers. No parliamentary oversight. It sets up a consultative committee of people appointed by the Premier and the Health Minister, and they don't even need to take the advice of that. It is just a consultative committee.
Central to a liberal democracy is a belief in shared power. And central to a liberal democracy is a, is the belief in a suspicion of concentrated power. Central to a liberal democracy is the accountability of the executive to the Parliament. Central to a liberal democracy is the preservation of the following rights:
freedom to criticise the government;
freedom from arbitrary arrest;
freedom of worship;
the right to a fair trial;
the right of assembly;
freedom of movement.
This bill hands the government the power to throw out every one of those rights by decree. And there is no oversight of these powers.
We are supposed to think critically in this place. We are supposed to come here, representing our constituents, thinking critically. That's why people elected us. Stop being sheep.
I find it inconceivable that a futue Premier, for example, might determine that people with red hair can't hold a job. I find that completely out of the realm of possibility. But you know what, two years ago I never contemplated that we would live in a world where someone who isn't vaccinated can't hold a job, can't go into a shop, can't go to an event. I never believed that we would come to a place as a state where we would say that. But here we are.
And these things don't happen overnight. They happen by degrees. Do I trust the Andrews Government and all future governments to exercise these powers responsibly? No I don't. And I think anyone who does is an absolute fool.
Labor MPs protest that this is what we asked for, that we called for elected politicians to be accountable for these decisions. What we called for was proper parliamentary oversight.
MALE VOICE OFF-CAMERA: Here, here!
STEPH RYAN: And that's why we've proposed that that the power to make orders should be governed, should require the approval of a constitutional majority of both houses of the Parliament.
When the President of the Victorian Bar Council comes out and says that the Stasi* would be happy with the powers that this bill confers, people need to sit up and take note. This is how he summarized it yesterday: The Bill confers on the Health Minister in a practical sense an effectively unlimited power to rule the state by decree for effectively an indefinite period and without judicial or parliamentary oversight.
That doesn't add up to good democracy.
People might argue that ultimate accountability sits with the people at an election. If you don't like what a premier's done, well, vote them out. But yesterday when we had the bill briefing, the department could not say whether this bill gives the power to the Premier to suspend elections.
MALE VOICE OFF-CAMERA: What!
STEPH RYAN: They did not know the answer to that, and they said they would have to come back and give us advice, which we still haven't received. That remains unanswered. The department doesn't know whether the Premier could use this bill to suspend an election. [voice breaking:] Do you realize how extraordinary that is?
The Irish philosopher Edmund Burke said that, "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Those opposite tell us that unprecedented powers are required for unprecedented times. Governments always present compelling reasons to concentrate power.
My grandmother came to this country fleeing Mussolini and I am glad that she is not alive today to see what is happening. I genuinely am. I think she would be absolutely horrified. I honestly never believed, I never believed that the people elected to this chamber would think that it is appropriate to hand the Premier and the Health Minister the kind of power to lock people up, to lock people down, to cancel protests without the checks and balances of Parliament, to strip people of their most basic rights without the oversight and the checks and balances of Parliament.
The erosion of people's liberties does not happen overnight; it happens by degrees. Streamline pandemic laws, by all means. We don't argue with that, We know that the government needs a certain degree of flexibility to control dangerous outbreaks of disease. We are not arguing about that,. We are arguing for proper accountability and oversight. This bill does not deliver those measures.
Let me conclude with the proverb that we all know because it is inscribed into the foyer of this building.
"Where there is no counsel the people fall, but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."
That's the principle of this Parliament. And it is the principle that I urge members of the Labor Party to adhere to. Do not give this unchecked power not just to this government but to future governments. It is wrong.
9:09
[END]
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
*Stasi refers to the Ministerium für Staatsicherheit or Ministry of State Security in East Germany 1950-1990.
Gobsmacking!! And this directly brings to mind NY Gov Kathy Hochul's beyond-outrageous quarantine camps regulation which attorney Bobbie Anne Cox took the to NY Supreme Court and got overturned-- for now. Here's a brief transcript from Steve Kirsch's interview of Cox:
Q & A WITH BOBBIE ANNE COX, THE NY ATTORNEY WHO STRUCK DOWN GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S QUARANTINE CAMPS REGULATION
BOBBIE ANNE COX: My case is the entire state of New York, and it's, um, I struck down the quarantine camp regulation that [Governor] Kathy Hochul, her Department of Heath had issued where they could force New Yorkers to either lockdown in their homes or remove them from their homes and lock them up in facilities. I mean, quarantine detention centers, quarantine camps, whatever noun you want to use.
STEVE KIRSCH: At their sole discretion and decision.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Yes.
STEVE KIRSCH: Of course.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: For however long they wanted, that there was no restriction in that regulation, so they could have literally locked New Yorkers up or locked them down for days, weeks, months.
STEVE KIRSCH: Years?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Yeah. There was no restriction whatsoever.
STEVE KIRSCH: And the rationale could be pretty much anything, right? They could just do it to misinformation spreaders like myself. So if I lived in New York they could haul me away to a quarantine camp. Would they be able to cut off my Internet, too?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Absolutely. So the regulation was very, it gave them unbelievable, unfettered power. And it said that the Department of Health could tell you what you could and couldn't do while you were in quarantine, which means, yeah, they could have
taken your cell phone, they could have cut off your Internet access, they could have told you what you could eat or couldn't eat or what medications you could take or couldn't take or had to take. It was very broad power that they gave themselves. And there was no age restriction. So they could have taken you, but they also could have taken your child or your grandchild or your elderly parent. And there was no way to get out of quarantine once they put you in. So I mean, what I mean by that is, you know, we were having oral arguments in front of the judge, and the judge asked the Attorney General's Office, listen, let's say you take a family and you put them into a quarantine facility or a hospital, you know, how do they get out? And the Assistant Attorney General just, you know, said, well, I guess they could hire a lawyer and sue. You know, I mean—
STEVE KIRSCH: Might take four or five years, maybe.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: I mean, no due process.
STEVE KIRSCH: Cost a few million dollars, maybe.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Yep. Absolutely.
STEVE KIRSCH: At least they could get out.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: [laughs]
STEVE KIRSCH: Assuming that they win.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Assuming they win their case, right. Right. So it was horrific, I mean, it was complete, you know, authoritarian rule that you know Kathy Hochul and her Department of Health, they literally gave themselves the power. They went around the legislature, this did not go through the New York State Senate or the New York State Assembly. In fact there was a bill that was proposed in the Assembly here in New York for like seven years which was very similar to the regulation, it was a very scary proposed law. But it had no support whatsoever. It literally had not one other New York State Assembly member or New York State Senator that would back it, so the bill went nowhere. Eventually, Nick Perry the assemblyman from New York City who had proposed that bill, eventually he withdrew it. It had zero support.
So what did the Governor do? They changed the language a little bit, they pushed it through the Department of Health, and they made it a regulation. So it was completely unconstitutional. The governor and the Department of Health do not have the power to make law. That is a power that is reserved for the legislature. That's very clear separation of powers in both the United States Constitution, also in the New York State Constitution. Very clear, separation of powers means we have three branches of government, each one stands on its own, they're supposed to be co-equal, and one branch can't go and take the power from the others because then that's tyranny. I mean, that's, you know, the people are the ones who suffer when there is tyranny. So all three branches have to stay in their own lane. But here, I mean, the governor and the Department of Health and the executive branch, supposed to be enforcing the laws that made by the legislature,
here they made a law, you know, which they had no authority to do.
So thankfully the judge, New York State Supreme Court Judge Ron Ploetz he struck it down, he said it's unconstitutional, the governor doesn't have the power, the Department of Health doesn't have the power.And he said it's null, it's void, it cannot be enforced. But you know, Kathy Hochul filed a notice of appeal. They want to get the power back. You know, they haven't moved forward with the appeal probably because it's election day coming up next week and they just don't want New York voters to know they want to get this
horrific power back, which is completely unconstitutional, and use tax dollars to fight the appeal. So they haven't actually moved forward with the appeal yet. But you know, we'll see what the election holds next week because if Leticia James, she's running for Attorney General, she wants another four years, if she wins or if Kathy Hochul wins and she's our governor for another four years, you know I'm sure they're going to push forward with this appeal and try and get the power back, ry and overturn the judge's decision, so they can have forced isolation and quarantine facilities in New York State. It's unbelievable. I mean, it's so anti-American.
STEVE KIRSCH: But what happens in the meantime? Are they allowed to do this, like, in the meantime, or, is, did the judge state regulation. Which way is it going?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Right, so the judge struck down the regulation. So it no longer exists, it is not enforceable.
STEVE KIRSCH: But before he did that, what was the, what would happen if, like, could they have put you in these quarantine camps?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Oh, for sure. For sure. The regulation had no requirement that they prove that you were sick.
STEVE KIRSCH: Wouldn't it be great if we controlled the governor's office in New York and then we invited Anthony Fauci to give a talk, and then we said, eh, we're going to quarantine you. Forever.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: [laughs] Well, that's what the regulation let them do, right? The regulation—
STEVE KIRSCH: This could be used the other way. I mean, if, if, assuming it was constitutional. Look, even the New York legislature shouldn't have the power to take a citizen and put them in quarantine for an undetermined amount of time. That seems like that would be unconstitutional no mater how you look at it. That no state legislature, Congress can't do it, nobody can do that. Is that right? Unless you rewrote, amended the constitution, essentially. Is that correct?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Right. So you know we do have a law in New York State, as many states do, which does allow the government to isolate somebody if they are a public health threat. However, that law, which we've had for 70 years here in New York, that law does have a number of due process protections built into it, so that the government can't abuse its power, right? So the number one thing that that law says is you have to prove the person actually has the communicable disease that you think they have. You can't just suspect, well, maybe you were exposed, maybe you weren't, I don't know, but I'm going to issue you an isolation or quarantine order. No. The law is very clear. Step one, the person has to actually be sick. And that law has many other due process protections built in. But another main one there is that it's not that the judge finds that you are harboring a disease, the judge has to find that you are being a nuisance and you are not acting in a manner to protect other people from getting your disease. Right? So they have to have an investigation, according to the law, they have to have an investigation, you have a right to an attorney, there has to be a hearing before a judge, the judge has to issue the decision.
In this regulation, you know, Hochul comes along with her Department of Health and says, well, forget that, we're not going to do that, we don't need to have due process, we're going to pick and choose which New Yorkers we want to lock up or lockdown for as long as we want and we don't have to prove anything. We don't have to prove they're sick, we don't have to prove they were exposed, you know, we're just going to put— and we'll let you know when you can get out.
It was so anti-American, so unconstitutional. The judge struck it down. he said it's null and void. He barred them from enforcing them from enforcing it. So today, as of July 8, 2022, New Yorkers cannot be thrown in detention centers, whatever you want to call them by the Department of Health. They cannot, they no longer have that power. It's shameful that they want to appeal it. It really is shameful. And use tax dollars to do so. You know, clear breach of separation of powers. And clear that they want to completely get rid of our constitution and rewrite it so that they can do whatever they want whenever they to the citizens of New York.
The problem is that if this happens in New York, let's say Hochul wins on Tuesday, election, let's say Leticia James wins, now she's our Attorney General again, Hochul's our governor again and they move forward with the appeal, let's say it's overturned. If we have quarantine facilities in New York State as a new way to contain communicable diseases, that's going to spread across the country like wildfire. Every state's going to turn and say, wait a minute, if New York's allowed to force their citizens into quarantine with no proof and no due process, why don't we do that? Oh, of course we can do it, let's do it! Right? So it spreads, you know, the insanity will then spread across the country and then what do we have? Then we have the United States of America having forced isolation and quarantine facilities. I mean, it's just, it's absurd. It cannot stand. It just. [shakes head]
STEVE KIRSCH: Yeah, there's certainly been a lot of absurd things that have happened in this pandemic that I believe cannot stand. They've been standing for a lot longer than I ever expected. And the more I learn about what's going on and there are all sorts of atrocities that existed for decades and well-known and they're still being pulled off, you know, not to the extent of quarantining people without their consent, but, yeah.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: But I mean it's, you destroy lives, right? You see what the lockdowns did to people. You know. Imagine the government, unelected bureaucrats in the Health Department being allowed to tell people, you can't see your child, you can't go to work, you have to be locked up in this facility until we tell you that you can get out. There was no way to negotiate your way out. You couldn't say, wait a second, hang on a second, I don't have tuberculosis. I'll take a test. You know, I'll prove to you I don't have tuberculosis, or monkey ox. There was a whole long list of diseases that would fall under this regulation. It wasn't just covid 19. You know, tuberculosis, polio, money pox, toxic shock syndrome, I'm not exactly sure how that's communicable. But, you know, Lyme disease. They were really putting anything they wanted on this list and—
STEVE KIRSCH: Quarantining for Lyme disease! Wow.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: That was on the list.
STEVE KIRSCH: Wow.
42:45
[END OF EXCERPT]
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
See
"Court Strikes Down 'Quarantine Camp' Regulation in New York by Bobbie Anne Cox, Brownstone Institute, August 25, 2022
Sad truth is the Victorian state 'government' she's criticizing had, less than a year earlier, set their Stazi Jack Booted goons against peaceful anti-lockdown protesters with batons and rubber bullets....and yet, at the very next election, the Victorian sheeple re-elected the same tyrants right back into office....!!! No sympathy here....!!
It can't be stopped. This was in the works for years. Control tightening more and more, us created viruses, plandemics, chips are already in people, the WEF confirms hirari thst humans are now hackable, by stating they now have, based on covid vaccines the ability to re-write genomes, "write permissions." Just pray for God to return as soon as possible! He always wins in the end.
Pure theatre, I count six, possibly seven MP’s in the chamber. The bloke behind her in the fecking mask (in the empty chamber) clearly couldn’t give a toss as he was too busy texting to even listen. This is bollocks. Pure bollocks. They don’t care.
They don't care, but someday their grandchildren will & her words will be on record in parliament & the net.
The coup d'état is near complete, and it's global. By now many will have seen today's superb video from Book of Ours covering Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova's work, showing how this has effectively already been achieved by hidden decree in the United States:
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/the-new-constitution-living-war-crimes
As well a the progress of the tyrannical WHO 'treaty' and James Roguski's valiant efforts to raise awareness and resistance against it:
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/100-reasons
Plus, the renegade Australian state and national governments 'need' legislation that will enable them to put all those concentration camps they built to 'good use'.
Staring into the abyss.
A good dose of truth. Too bad she resigned her position. Victorians lose when this strength of conviction is no longer in the parliament.
Damn shame she had no on working with her, way to hard for one to stand up to absolute corruption by ones self. I hate to hear what they did to her for her to back off.
Pity she is no longer in Parliament.
I hope she is still working behind the scenes to expose the corrupt.
Love her speech! She's right on target.
A great speech but old news!
Ryan speaking to a virtually empty chamber (how disrespectful is that to those that voted for her) did her best but the Bill was past and Ryan, who gave notice in July, is no longer in parliament. I suspect, next time we hear from her, she’ll be in another State like the other Victorians who are awake.
What a dreadful shame that the Liberals had Morrison as a leader at a time when these State based tyrants were blatantly destroying Federal Constitutional principles. This Bill is not lawful under the Constitution but with Labor now in Federally, it will stand and destroy democracy in Victoria (WA, NT, QLD, TAS, NSW and SA, in that order, will follow in domino effect).
Liberals it is already past time to do the right thing!
Same in the UK when the MP (Andrew Bridgen) spoke out in the Houses of Parliament on the same topic. There were maybe 6 people present, of whom maybe one was actually awake .😡
For those who might have missed that:
UK Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen in Parliament
"the mRNA vaccines, they're not safe, they're not effective, and they're not necessary. I implore the government to halt their use immediately "
December 13, 2022
https://twitter.com/statecontrick/status/1602750152107696128
TRANSCRIPT
ANDREW BRIDGEN: In 2015 a commentary by Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet, suggested that possibly half of the published medical literature may simply be untrue. He wrote that science has taken a turn towards darkness and asked who is going to take the first step to clean up the system. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that first step could start this evening with this debate. It starts here and the Vaccine Minister and the government ensuring in the first instance that there needs to be an immediate and complete suspension of any more covid vaccines and their use of mRNA technology.
Madam Deputy Speaker, silence on this issue is more contagious than the virus itself. And I'd also, now, so should courage be. And I would implore all the scientists, the medics, the nurses, and those in the media who know the truth that the harm these vaccines are causing to our people, to speak out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we've already sacrificed in my view far too many of our citizens on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed. Last week the MHRA authorized these experimental vaccines for use on children as young as 6 months. A report which I've already quoted in a Westminster Hall debate some weeks ago, by the journal of American Medical Associations studying the effects of the covid-19 mRNA vaccine on children under 5 years of age show that 1 in 200 had an adverse event which resulted in hospitalization and had symptoms that lasted longer than 90 days. As the data clearly shows, to anyone who wants to look at it, the mRNA vaccines, they're not safe, they're not effective, and they're not necessary. I implore the government to halt their use immediately and, as I have demonstrated and the data clearly shows, the government's corrupt policy on the mRNA vaccines is on the wrong side of medical ethics, it's on the wrong side of scientific data, and ultimately, Madam Deputy Speaker, it will be on the wrong side of history.
2:14
[END]
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
Andrew Bridgen's official page is
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4133/contact
He is Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire
And this was 12months ago, Australia is not the place it used to be, people are happy to be slaves and do not care about rights, it's horrible now. The pandemic bill passed because of 1 X senator who took the cash before losing his seat just a few months ago, we protested every week for months about this bill, over 600,000 people on one day, yet MSM branded us antivaxers, and said only 10,000 attended, media is captured by government and all the senators are captured with bribes and money so they keep their benefits. The state rules, and that is it. As I said, too many weak pathetic Australians do not realise what they are doing by staying silent ,they simply do not give a rat's arse, it's sad to be Australian now and it makes me sick in the guts every time I think about it.
Most are dying and based on the vax numbers beimg reported, if to be believed, shows that aost no one will be alive in a few years, based on the clinical teial data being released from Pfizer, the repeat serial felon rx company that has paid billions in damages.
They will get rid of her, she is to TRUTHFUL and has principles... There are no more men in that chamber, just cowards, paid off and sheep and part of the group doing it...
[edited typo, added YT link and time stamp]
Ryan opposes Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021
October 28, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9VOXbMpeus&feature=emb_imp_woyt
TRANSCRIPT
STEPH RYAN: I feel sick that we're having this debate. I don't think there has ever been a piece of legislation to come before this chamber that I have been more vehemently opposed to. I feel sick that Labor MPs are not brave enough to stand up and speak the truth about this legislation. I don't care if you think that Daniel Andrews' handling of this pandemic has been infallible. I don't care if you stand with Dan. I don't care if you think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The truth is that this legislation is about handing the Premier and the Health Minister the ability to rule by decree. Is that power that you want to hand to every future Premier and Health Minister? Doesn't matter what you think about Daniel Andrews. This is not even about the current government. This is about the management of pandemics but also the ability to trigger these powers forever into the future. It's about the regime that it has the potential to set up here in this state. That's what is at stake here. Is that what we want as Victorians?
This bill allows the government to declare a pandemic in Victoria and make orders that lock down the state even when there is no presence of disease here. Yes, the Chief Officer needs to publish his or her advice within 14 days of those orders being made, but that advice, even if it contradicts the order made by the Premier or the Health Minister, doesn't invalidate those orders if it doesn't support it.
The bill gives the government the right to make orders on the ability of attributes— things like race, gender, sexuality. How on earth can people support that? How on earth can members opposite support that? It is extraordinary.
It offers no rights of appeal to courts that people who are incarcerated. It sets up a penalty regime of fines that would see an individual face more than $90,000. That would send most ordinary Victorians to jail. Who can afford a $90,000 fine? And the government says, "Don't worry. That's just about the worst breaches." Well, that is not what the legislation says. It's extraordinary [inaudible] this figure. And I cannot believe that those opposite are not brave enough to stand up and speak out about it. I imagine that the member for Altona is going to speak on this legislation. She has been the Attorney-General; she has been a lawyer. She cannot possibly agree with this. She can't.
Where are your values?
Speaker, there is no parliamentary oversight of these powers. No parliamentary oversight. It sets up a consultative committee of people appointed by the Premier and the Health Minister, and they don't even need to take the advice of that. It is just a consultative committee.
Central to a liberal democracy is a belief in shared power. And central to a liberal democracy is a, is the belief in a suspicion of concentrated power. Central to a liberal democracy is the accountability of the executive to the Parliament. Central to a liberal democracy is the preservation of the following rights:
freedom to criticise the government;
freedom from arbitrary arrest;
freedom of worship;
the right to a fair trial;
the right of assembly;
freedom of movement.
This bill hands the government the power to throw out every one of those rights by decree. And there is no oversight of these powers.
We are supposed to think critically in this place. We are supposed to come here, representing our constituents, thinking critically. That's why people elected us. Stop being sheep.
I find it inconceivable that a futue Premier, for example, might determine that people with red hair can't hold a job. I find that completely out of the realm of possibility. But you know what, two years ago I never contemplated that we would live in a world where someone who isn't vaccinated can't hold a job, can't go into a shop, can't go to an event. I never believed that we would come to a place as a state where we would say that. But here we are.
And these things don't happen overnight. They happen by degrees. Do I trust the Andrews Government and all future governments to exercise these powers responsibly? No I don't. And I think anyone who does is an absolute fool.
Labor MPs protest that this is what we asked for, that we called for elected politicians to be accountable for these decisions. What we called for was proper parliamentary oversight.
MALE VOICE OFF-CAMERA: Here, here!
STEPH RYAN: And that's why we've proposed that that the power to make orders should be governed, should require the approval of a constitutional majority of both houses of the Parliament.
When the President of the Victorian Bar Council comes out and says that the Stasi* would be happy with the powers that this bill confers, people need to sit up and take note. This is how he summarized it yesterday: The Bill confers on the Health Minister in a practical sense an effectively unlimited power to rule the state by decree for effectively an indefinite period and without judicial or parliamentary oversight.
That doesn't add up to good democracy.
People might argue that ultimate accountability sits with the people at an election. If you don't like what a premier's done, well, vote them out. But yesterday when we had the bill briefing, the department could not say whether this bill gives the power to the Premier to suspend elections.
MALE VOICE OFF-CAMERA: What!
STEPH RYAN: They did not know the answer to that, and they said they would have to come back and give us advice, which we still haven't received. That remains unanswered. The department doesn't know whether the Premier could use this bill to suspend an election. [voice breaking:] Do you realize how extraordinary that is?
The Irish philosopher Edmund Burke said that, "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Those opposite tell us that unprecedented powers are required for unprecedented times. Governments always present compelling reasons to concentrate power.
My grandmother came to this country fleeing Mussolini and I am glad that she is not alive today to see what is happening. I genuinely am. I think she would be absolutely horrified. I honestly never believed, I never believed that the people elected to this chamber would think that it is appropriate to hand the Premier and the Health Minister the kind of power to lock people up, to lock people down, to cancel protests without the checks and balances of Parliament, to strip people of their most basic rights without the oversight and the checks and balances of Parliament.
The erosion of people's liberties does not happen overnight; it happens by degrees. Streamline pandemic laws, by all means. We don't argue with that, We know that the government needs a certain degree of flexibility to control dangerous outbreaks of disease. We are not arguing about that,. We are arguing for proper accountability and oversight. This bill does not deliver those measures.
Let me conclude with the proverb that we all know because it is inscribed into the foyer of this building.
"Where there is no counsel the people fall, but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."
That's the principle of this Parliament. And it is the principle that I urge members of the Labor Party to adhere to. Do not give this unchecked power not just to this government but to future governments. It is wrong.
9:09
[END]
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
*Stasi refers to the Ministerium für Staatsicherheit or Ministry of State Security in East Germany 1950-1990.
See article on Ryan's retirement from politics:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-06/steph-ryan-deputy-leader-of-victorian-nationals-resigns/101212172
Gobsmacking!! And this directly brings to mind NY Gov Kathy Hochul's beyond-outrageous quarantine camps regulation which attorney Bobbie Anne Cox took the to NY Supreme Court and got overturned-- for now. Here's a brief transcript from Steve Kirsch's interview of Cox:
Q & A WITH BOBBIE ANNE COX, THE NY ATTORNEY WHO STRUCK DOWN GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S QUARANTINE CAMPS REGULATION
Episode #54 Beating Covid in the Courts
https://rumble.com/v1re2si-full-episode-54-beating-covid-in-the-courts.html
Nov 4, 2022
TRANSCRIPT OF EXCERPT
30:25
BOBBIE ANNE COX: My case is the entire state of New York, and it's, um, I struck down the quarantine camp regulation that [Governor] Kathy Hochul, her Department of Heath had issued where they could force New Yorkers to either lockdown in their homes or remove them from their homes and lock them up in facilities. I mean, quarantine detention centers, quarantine camps, whatever noun you want to use.
STEVE KIRSCH: At their sole discretion and decision.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Yes.
STEVE KIRSCH: Of course.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: For however long they wanted, that there was no restriction in that regulation, so they could have literally locked New Yorkers up or locked them down for days, weeks, months.
STEVE KIRSCH: Years?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Yeah. There was no restriction whatsoever.
STEVE KIRSCH: And the rationale could be pretty much anything, right? They could just do it to misinformation spreaders like myself. So if I lived in New York they could haul me away to a quarantine camp. Would they be able to cut off my Internet, too?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Absolutely. So the regulation was very, it gave them unbelievable, unfettered power. And it said that the Department of Health could tell you what you could and couldn't do while you were in quarantine, which means, yeah, they could have
taken your cell phone, they could have cut off your Internet access, they could have told you what you could eat or couldn't eat or what medications you could take or couldn't take or had to take. It was very broad power that they gave themselves. And there was no age restriction. So they could have taken you, but they also could have taken your child or your grandchild or your elderly parent. And there was no way to get out of quarantine once they put you in. So I mean, what I mean by that is, you know, we were having oral arguments in front of the judge, and the judge asked the Attorney General's Office, listen, let's say you take a family and you put them into a quarantine facility or a hospital, you know, how do they get out? And the Assistant Attorney General just, you know, said, well, I guess they could hire a lawyer and sue. You know, I mean—
STEVE KIRSCH: Might take four or five years, maybe.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: I mean, no due process.
STEVE KIRSCH: Cost a few million dollars, maybe.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Yep. Absolutely.
STEVE KIRSCH: At least they could get out.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: [laughs]
STEVE KIRSCH: Assuming that they win.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Assuming they win their case, right. Right. So it was horrific, I mean, it was complete, you know, authoritarian rule that you know Kathy Hochul and her Department of Health, they literally gave themselves the power. They went around the legislature, this did not go through the New York State Senate or the New York State Assembly. In fact there was a bill that was proposed in the Assembly here in New York for like seven years which was very similar to the regulation, it was a very scary proposed law. But it had no support whatsoever. It literally had not one other New York State Assembly member or New York State Senator that would back it, so the bill went nowhere. Eventually, Nick Perry the assemblyman from New York City who had proposed that bill, eventually he withdrew it. It had zero support.
So what did the Governor do? They changed the language a little bit, they pushed it through the Department of Health, and they made it a regulation. So it was completely unconstitutional. The governor and the Department of Health do not have the power to make law. That is a power that is reserved for the legislature. That's very clear separation of powers in both the United States Constitution, also in the New York State Constitution. Very clear, separation of powers means we have three branches of government, each one stands on its own, they're supposed to be co-equal, and one branch can't go and take the power from the others because then that's tyranny. I mean, that's, you know, the people are the ones who suffer when there is tyranny. So all three branches have to stay in their own lane. But here, I mean, the governor and the Department of Health and the executive branch, supposed to be enforcing the laws that made by the legislature,
here they made a law, you know, which they had no authority to do.
So thankfully the judge, New York State Supreme Court Judge Ron Ploetz he struck it down, he said it's unconstitutional, the governor doesn't have the power, the Department of Health doesn't have the power.And he said it's null, it's void, it cannot be enforced. But you know, Kathy Hochul filed a notice of appeal. They want to get the power back. You know, they haven't moved forward with the appeal probably because it's election day coming up next week and they just don't want New York voters to know they want to get this
horrific power back, which is completely unconstitutional, and use tax dollars to fight the appeal. So they haven't actually moved forward with the appeal yet. But you know, we'll see what the election holds next week because if Leticia James, she's running for Attorney General, she wants another four years, if she wins or if Kathy Hochul wins and she's our governor for another four years, you know I'm sure they're going to push forward with this appeal and try and get the power back, ry and overturn the judge's decision, so they can have forced isolation and quarantine facilities in New York State. It's unbelievable. I mean, it's so anti-American.
continued...
STEVE KIRSCH: But what happens in the meantime? Are they allowed to do this, like, in the meantime, or, is, did the judge state regulation. Which way is it going?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Right, so the judge struck down the regulation. So it no longer exists, it is not enforceable.
STEVE KIRSCH: But before he did that, what was the, what would happen if, like, could they have put you in these quarantine camps?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Oh, for sure. For sure. The regulation had no requirement that they prove that you were sick.
STEVE KIRSCH: Wouldn't it be great if we controlled the governor's office in New York and then we invited Anthony Fauci to give a talk, and then we said, eh, we're going to quarantine you. Forever.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: [laughs] Well, that's what the regulation let them do, right? The regulation—
STEVE KIRSCH: This could be used the other way. I mean, if, if, assuming it was constitutional. Look, even the New York legislature shouldn't have the power to take a citizen and put them in quarantine for an undetermined amount of time. That seems like that would be unconstitutional no mater how you look at it. That no state legislature, Congress can't do it, nobody can do that. Is that right? Unless you rewrote, amended the constitution, essentially. Is that correct?
BOBBIE ANNE COX: Right. So you know we do have a law in New York State, as many states do, which does allow the government to isolate somebody if they are a public health threat. However, that law, which we've had for 70 years here in New York, that law does have a number of due process protections built into it, so that the government can't abuse its power, right? So the number one thing that that law says is you have to prove the person actually has the communicable disease that you think they have. You can't just suspect, well, maybe you were exposed, maybe you weren't, I don't know, but I'm going to issue you an isolation or quarantine order. No. The law is very clear. Step one, the person has to actually be sick. And that law has many other due process protections built in. But another main one there is that it's not that the judge finds that you are harboring a disease, the judge has to find that you are being a nuisance and you are not acting in a manner to protect other people from getting your disease. Right? So they have to have an investigation, according to the law, they have to have an investigation, you have a right to an attorney, there has to be a hearing before a judge, the judge has to issue the decision.
In this regulation, you know, Hochul comes along with her Department of Health and says, well, forget that, we're not going to do that, we don't need to have due process, we're going to pick and choose which New Yorkers we want to lock up or lockdown for as long as we want and we don't have to prove anything. We don't have to prove they're sick, we don't have to prove they were exposed, you know, we're just going to put— and we'll let you know when you can get out.
It was so anti-American, so unconstitutional. The judge struck it down. he said it's null and void. He barred them from enforcing them from enforcing it. So today, as of July 8, 2022, New Yorkers cannot be thrown in detention centers, whatever you want to call them by the Department of Health. They cannot, they no longer have that power. It's shameful that they want to appeal it. It really is shameful. And use tax dollars to do so. You know, clear breach of separation of powers. And clear that they want to completely get rid of our constitution and rewrite it so that they can do whatever they want whenever they to the citizens of New York.
The problem is that if this happens in New York, let's say Hochul wins on Tuesday, election, let's say Leticia James wins, now she's our Attorney General again, Hochul's our governor again and they move forward with the appeal, let's say it's overturned. If we have quarantine facilities in New York State as a new way to contain communicable diseases, that's going to spread across the country like wildfire. Every state's going to turn and say, wait a minute, if New York's allowed to force their citizens into quarantine with no proof and no due process, why don't we do that? Oh, of course we can do it, let's do it! Right? So it spreads, you know, the insanity will then spread across the country and then what do we have? Then we have the United States of America having forced isolation and quarantine facilities. I mean, it's just, it's absurd. It cannot stand. It just. [shakes head]
STEVE KIRSCH: Yeah, there's certainly been a lot of absurd things that have happened in this pandemic that I believe cannot stand. They've been standing for a lot longer than I ever expected. And the more I learn about what's going on and there are all sorts of atrocities that existed for decades and well-known and they're still being pulled off, you know, not to the extent of quarantining people without their consent, but, yeah.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: But I mean it's, you destroy lives, right? You see what the lockdowns did to people. You know. Imagine the government, unelected bureaucrats in the Health Department being allowed to tell people, you can't see your child, you can't go to work, you have to be locked up in this facility until we tell you that you can get out. There was no way to negotiate your way out. You couldn't say, wait a second, hang on a second, I don't have tuberculosis. I'll take a test. You know, I'll prove to you I don't have tuberculosis, or monkey ox. There was a whole long list of diseases that would fall under this regulation. It wasn't just covid 19. You know, tuberculosis, polio, money pox, toxic shock syndrome, I'm not exactly sure how that's communicable. But, you know, Lyme disease. They were really putting anything they wanted on this list and—
STEVE KIRSCH: Quarantining for Lyme disease! Wow.
BOBBIE ANNE COX: That was on the list.
STEVE KIRSCH: Wow.
42:45
[END OF EXCERPT]
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
See
"Court Strikes Down 'Quarantine Camp' Regulation in New York by Bobbie Anne Cox, Brownstone Institute, August 25, 2022
https://brownstone.org/articles/court-strikes-down-quarantine-camp-regulation-in-new-york-state/
Bobbie Anne Cox blogs at
https://attorneycox.substack.com
Thank you Transcriber B!
They may knock down one, however, more will appear from nowhere. That’s how we operate.
Sad truth is the Victorian state 'government' she's criticizing had, less than a year earlier, set their Stazi Jack Booted goons against peaceful anti-lockdown protesters with batons and rubber bullets....and yet, at the very next election, the Victorian sheeple re-elected the same tyrants right back into office....!!! No sympathy here....!!
Defund the police, it's safest for everyone. And all cops should be dox'ed
This was back in 2021. Just the video of what we were all put through...because it was like this here in the states as well.
WHEN DO WE SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND WE START WIPING THE SLATE CLEAN!
It can't be stopped. This was in the works for years. Control tightening more and more, us created viruses, plandemics, chips are already in people, the WEF confirms hirari thst humans are now hackable, by stating they now have, based on covid vaccines the ability to re-write genomes, "write permissions." Just pray for God to return as soon as possible! He always wins in the end.
coming to a country near you....really near you!
Yeh Dan Andrews the Victoria State Premier is a nasty piece of work, communist sympathizer.
Far worse that you can imagine
The same playbook is being introduced around the world. No more of this tyranny
- this is their "pandemic"
https://outraged.substack.com/p/graphene-conspiracy
https://outraged.substack.com/p/graphene-based-fraud
https://outraged.substack.com/p/causes-of-injuries-and-deaths-from