We are at the beginning of something.
The government are not going to release the lock down in Auckland until more people are vaccinated. Technically this may seem like a reasonable request BUT it means the vaccinated people are being held back by the un-vaccinated and if you are vaccinated, you would be quite annoyed at the un-vaccinated.
I know we need a plan but for many of us who have maintained our health by making daily decisions to eat, drink, and be healthy; sticking an UNKNOWN VACCINE into our bodies is just not a thing we can do.
1:0 If you know what the outcome of the vaccine will be in 5-10 years, or you know for sure that the vaccine will work, please present your evidence.
2:0 If you are a manufacturer of a vaccine and you are sure it is not going to cause a problem to our future, please remove your financial immunity from prosecution and we will believe you.
3:0 If you are a company and you will only employ the vaccinated, establish an insurance policy to cover those employees you force to take the vaccine should anything untoward happen later on (even after they are no longer your staff).
In reality, no one is going to be able to answer these questions without risk and because of that, this vaccine is an experiment.
So What Law Protects the Un-vaccinated?
This is a Human Rights Issue so this is where we start the trail:
NZ Human Rights: https://www.hrc.co.nz/
They have set up a specific page : https://www.hrc.co.nz/resources/human-rights-relation-covid-19/
I will copy specific excerpts. After reading the page I can see that human rights have been wavered.
Section 5 of the Human Rights Act has been cited as the reason the High Court Judge ruled in favour of the company requiring staff to be vaccinated or lose their job.
NZ Legislation: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/
Human Rights Act 1993 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html
NZ Bill of Rights Act990:
Learn about your human rights in relation to Covid-19
Even in times of crisis, people have human rights that safeguard their dignity. Even in times of emergency, human rights place binding obligations upon the Government to abide by commitments they have made. The Government has obligations to limit the spread of Covid-19, but restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and respectful of human dignity. The Government has Te Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights obligations to protect people’s economic and social rights, as well as their civil and political rights.
This page addresses some frequently asked questions about Covid–19 and your rights. It also points to guidance issued by government agencies about your rights under privacy, employment and health and safety legislation.
As the nature of Covid-19 continues to evolve, so too will the Government response. Many of these issues will be considered by the courts now and in the future. Therefore this guidance may change.
The following information is only intended as a guide and is not legal advice.
Balancing human rights in a Covid environment
The Government measures to combat Covid-19 are extraordinary and place significant restrictions on New Zealanders’ human rights. Even during a pandemic, everyone has human rights and freedoms under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. However, there are times when limiting these rights and freedoms can be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
The Covid-19 pandemic raises complex questions about when these restrictions are justified, and where the balance lies between individual rights and freedoms and the right to health, which includes public health and safety. The right to health is a human right protected under both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which New Zealand is a State party to. In fact under the ICESCR, States must take necessary steps to prevent, treat and control epidemic diseases in order to realise the right to health. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UN treaty body for the ICESCR, has emphasised that States must ensure public health measures are reasonable and proportionate to protect all human rights.
A recent case in the High Court provides a useful example of how the Courts approach these questions. The case was a judicial review of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 by a former Customs worker who lost their job after they refused to get vaccinated for Covid-19. As part of the judicial review, the High Court considered whether the Order infringed on the right to be free from discrimination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Ultimately, the High Court decided that it did not. In coming to this conclusion, the judge wrote “the Court’s task in this case is to balance the benefit of the vaccine and the risk of being unvaccinated against any discrimination in relation to those affected”.
The judge went on to say that if the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the potential discrimination against the affected employee, then the limitation of rights under the Order was proportionate and justified under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In this case, the judge decided the scientific support for the vaccine and the benefits of the Order to the wider community outweighed any potential discrimination against that employee.
This approach to balancing rights will of course depend on the particular issue and context. For example, the Human Rights Act applies differently to public decision-makers compared to private entities, such as businesses. What is ultimately important is that human rights guide decision-making, whether by government decision-makers or businesses. The Human Rights Commission encourages businesses, service providers and employers to seek legal advice to ensure their Covid-19 policies do not breach the rights of others.
All respect to the judge but who provided the data to support the case? You can make data read pretty much anything you like. If you only review that which is given by government (who are doing their best to support their 'theory') what alternative possibilities are you considering?
So how do you get alternative 'facts' recognised by the court?
For example; Medsafe have provided reports about the adverse effects of the vaccine. I wonder what the evidence was. Can I find out?