The People vs. The State: Australian Vaccine Mandates to Be Challenged in the Supreme Court

There are currently four cases challenging forced vaccinations before the Supreme Court.

With Australian political leaders doubling down on their “no jab, no job, no shop” socialist-fisted policies, opposing mandatory vaccinations may seem like a pointless venture.

The good news is that the mandatory vaccination debate is far from over.

The government has won a propaganda victory, they’re yet to win out over the Australian Constitution’s prohibition on medical conscription.

There are currently four cases challenging forced vaccinations before the Supreme Court.

Tony Nikolic, managing director of Ashely, Francina, Leonard & Associates (AFL solicitors) explained to ABC radio, while specific to a few, the challenges before the Court represent thousands of workers from across a broad spectrum of industries.

Nikolic acknowledged concerns many have about the lack of long-term and some short-term data on the “vaccines.”

He also cited evidence regarding adverse reactions and noted that he had evidence suggesting the medical establishment is heavily censored.

Importantly, Nikolic added that the people speaking out:

“…are not getting their information from Facebook. Some of them are doctors. They’re actual qualified doctors. They’re paramedics, police officers, nurses; they’re people who are seeing [adverse effects to the vaccines] on the street.”

Joel Jammal, current head of Turning Point Australia, described to Caldron Pool the importance of the Supreme Court cases stating:

“The importance of these cases can’t be understated. It’s very encouraging to see almost 500,000 people tune into the preliminary hearing, and the case hasn’t begun yet.”

He added:

“It gives me confidence in seeing this and reminds me that my views on this are with the majority. We only need one case to get through for a win.”

The cases are set to be heard on September 30.

Voice for Victoria, an advocacy group for the removal of political management of a health crisis, offered a summarised update of where the Supreme Court cases were at, posting on Facebook:

“All cases will be heard together due to high public interest and to avoid conflicting judgements.”

The organisation said:

“While in some ways this makes sense regarding conflicting judgements and could be good in making it much harder for the govt to pick apart any one case, it means there will be one judge for this and aired out in one massive hit in NSW. They will still have to make a call on all the different challenges e.g. you can ‘win’ some but not others, but good lord given the volume in these I can’t see this only going for 2 days at this rate.”

Voice for Victoria rightfully added, the outcomes of these cases are “going to have a big impact on this country and those mandates depending on the rulings.”

There’s a blatant conflict between what the government says and what the government is doing.

Their mixed messages and inconsistencies have many Australians confused, demoralised, angry, and fed up.

Particularly with the bureaucratic caste’s contempt for the Australian constitution and informed consent.

A strong indication of this is the quagmire of unanswered questions from organisations in need of clarification on the legal ramifications of vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Such as unfair dismissal, workplace discrimination, bullying, and workers’ compensation.

The (now clarified) fine print for employers makes them financially responsible for up to $5,000 for every employee who experiences debilitating adverse effects from the “vaccines”.

Human Resources firm HR Legal does a good job of pointing out the grey areas, but provides little concrete direction, since “the $5,000 Federal scheme will not act as a complete indemnification for employers (ie secure employers against legal liability) from all workers’ compensation claims.”

For New South Wales, a Public Health Amendment – Vaccination Compensation – bill, put forward by Fred Nile (CDP) makes businesses “liable to pay compensation to the worker until the worker’s death, even if the worker ceases to be employed or otherwise engaged by the relevant body.”

Ramifications for corporate medical conscription are a costly legal minefield, wither bureaucrats leaving businesses to clean up the mess.

Furthermore, read the Human Rights Commission’s page on mandatory vaccinations.

The HRC seems to have doubts about the implications, impact, and precedence.

They appear unsure of where “no jab, no job, no shop” government-mandated discrimination, and segregation, via medical conscription, fits in the domain of violating human rights.

The HRC still affirms ‘the Australian Government’s policy is that COVID-19 vaccinations are voluntary for most Australians.’

The Australian Immunisation Handbook (10th ed.) states unequivocally in its section on valid consent (informed consent) that vaccines “must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.”

It’s for this reason that everything which can be done to civilly oppose medical conscription is being done.

Across the Pacific, Americans are faced with similar mandates.

Tucker Carlson pointed out the hypocrisy of the current administration, who, under Trump, said they wouldn’t support medical conscription, but now, under Biden are pushing vaccine mandates.

Carlson argued that mandatory vaccinations are about “power.”

Using the “vaccine’s” documented inability to stop transmission or infection he adds:

“These demands are so obviously irrational that forcing you to accept the ‘vaccines’ without complaint is the whole point of the exercise…If they can make you take medicine you don’t want or need, they’ve won. You are theirs. You belong to them.”

If the cases before the Australian Supreme Court are lost, we are likely to see:

  1. More peaceful protests, and non-violent civil disobedience.
  2. A mammoth task of handing the balance of power to the minor parties like One Nation, Liberal Democrats, United Australia Party, and Fishers, and Shooters in the next election.

Ronald Reagan once said:

“Let our friends and those who may wish us ill take note, [we have an obligation to each and the world] never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future course of life on this planet.”

Opposing vaccine mandates is a civic duty that has far-reaching consequences should we fail.

Theologian Peter J. Leithart’s chilling two-part warning is this,

“Mandatory vaccination builds state power by binding more and more people into increasingly strong obligations to submit to the orders of the central government.”

He concludes:

“Can’t happen here? That’s what they said when Wuhan locked down. A year and a half into this surrealist drama, is it still unthinkable that the unvaxxed may eventually be classified as domestic terrorists?”

The Caldron Pool Show

The Caldron Pool Show: #41 – Pandemic Amnesty for Pandemic Sins? With CrossPolitic
The Caldron Pool Show: #2 – Elijah Schaffer
The Caldron Pool Show: #48 The Lost Art of Storytelling (with Christine Cohen)
The Caldron Pool Show: #47 – Whitewashing and the New Blackface


If you value our work and would like to support us, you can do so by visiting our support page. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Visit our search page.

Copyright © 2024, Caldron Pool


Everything published at Caldron Pool is protected by copyright and cannot be used and/or duplicated without prior written permission. Links and excerpts with full attribution are permitted. Published articles represent the opinions of the author and may not reflect the views of all contributors at Caldron Pool.