Australia News & Commentary

Tenants Told to Get Double Vaccinated or Get Out

Further, if segregation is enforced by overzealous owners, acting on the arbitrary words of bureaucrats plastered all over social media, could tenants be facing a “get vaxxed or get locked out!” discrimination, or unfair eviction?
  • 157
    Shares

Poorly defined arbitrary laws cause harm. They do more damage to people than the destruction they are designed to supposedly prevent.

Nowhere is this truism currently more applicable than the COVID-19 authoritarianism rampaging like an uncontrollable wild boar throughout Western society.

An example of this occurred last week in Queensland, Australia.

The body corporate of an apartment block connected to a hotel issued a notice to tenants telling them that come mid-December they would have to be double “vaccinated” or face being locked out of their homes.

The notice read: “December 17th COVID Rules – 80% Double Vaxxed. No entry to the building for anyone not double vaccinated. [This] includes residents, guests, staff, and trades people.”

This wasn’t an official Queensland government notification.

The building’s body corporate was reacting to Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and her Government’s November 9short social media posts announcing her government’s embrace of a two-tier society.

A source close to the event – who wishes to remain anonymous – told Caldron Pool that when the body corporate was asked for more information, they were handed a print-out of the above social media post.

After the body corporate were unable to properly defend the original notice, it was reissued a few days. This time without the COVID-19 double-vaxxed rules.

Caldron Pool is unaware of any apology being issued to concerned tenants correcting the notice and explaining the confusion.

Themselves confused by the vague term “hospitality venues” in the Premier’s post, it appears as though the body corporate leaped before they bothered to look.

Consequently, the body corporate upset people by issuing an order based on the assumption that tenants were equal to the likes of GABBA Cricket Ground patrons being forced to follow the GABBA’s new conditions of entry.

Their reaction sparks the question: Will Queensland’s December 17 segregation between unvaccinated and “vaccinated”, allow body corporates, Real Estates or building owners to evict, and or refuse entry to current tenants based on their medical status re: a COVID-19 domestic passport?

Further, if segregation is enforced by overzealous owners, acting on the arbitrary words of bureaucrats plastered all over social media, could tenants be facing a “get vaxxed or get locked out!” discrimination, or unfair eviction?

Indicating that even real estates were vague on how Palaszczuk’s COVID mandates applied, and to whom, only two of the five real estates contacted by Caldron Pool responded.

One declined to comment, then referred us to Queensland’s peak real estate body: REIQ.

The other wrote:

“We are not aware of any changes that have been announced that would affect the property management industry. We believe the measures changing from 17/12/21 affect hospitality venues, stadiums, entertainment venues, music festivals, government owned galleries, museums and libraries and visiting aged care, hospitals, prisons and disability services. To our knowledge, there has been no announcement surrounding someone’s home.”

The way in which the Queensland government chose to announce the changes appears to have accelerated panic and confusion over who the laws applied to and how.

Palaszczuk’s vagueness coupled with broad categories leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation.

Much like the Australian states, New South Wales and Victoria, Queensland Labor’s move towards medical apartheid will remove freedoms, and replace them with prison privileges.

Society will be divided between those considered COVID “vaccinated” and those deemed unvaccinated; the “haves” and “have nots.”

Like all social credit systems, be they penal, or Communist, “freedoms and rights” will be granted on the grounds of coerced behavioural compliance with an elite’s overbearing demands, not on an individual’s informed consent.


  • 157
    Shares