Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

QF mandates Vaccine

Old 17th Oct 2021, 22:08
  #981 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes on 8 Posts
Anti mandate bid loses in NSW supreme Court.

Delivering his judgment on the matter on Friday afternoon, Justice Beech-Jones noted it was not the court’s function to “conclusively resolve legitimate debates concerning the appropriate treatments for COVID-19 or the effectiveness of the vaccines”.

Those are “matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision-maker, not the court,” he said.

Rather, it was the court’s function only to determine the legality of orders made under the Public Health Act.

Justice Beech-Jones noted that one of the main grounds for the challenge cited by the plaintiffs was the effect of the orders on the rights and freedoms of those who choose not to be vaccinated. The plaintiffs had argued, among other grounds, that the vaccine mandate violates a person’s “right to bodily integrity”.

In his reasons for dismissing the challenge, Justice Beech-Jones said “so far as the right to bodily integrity is concerned, it is not violated as the impugned orders do not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone.”
He said a “proper analysis” is that the orders “curtail freedom of movement, which in turn affects a person’s ability to work and socialise”.

Those sorts of restrictions, he said, “are the very type of restrictions that the Public Health Act clearly authorises.

“All of the asserted grounds of invalidity raised by both sets of plaintiffs have been rejected. Both proceedings must be dismissed.”
ampclamp is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 01:53
  #982 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,298
Received 356 Likes on 195 Posts
Originally Posted by ampclamp
It looks as if a lot of these court cases challenging vaccine mandates are just scams by dodgy lawyers to fleece money from gullible anti-vaxxers:

Crowdfunded lawyers and the rise of anti-vax, COVID denialist sentiment
dr dre is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 04:46
  #983 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: TIBA
Posts: 461
Received 129 Likes on 37 Posts
Looks like you’re wrong again X…… why are you here on a professional Pilots BB anyhow?
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 04:54
  #984 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,071
Received 138 Likes on 63 Posts
Those rulings are only valid because of the "emergency powers". Once that ends so does mandatory vaccination. So unless we are in a emergency forever the question will be once the emergency ends do you get your job back? They can only enforce it through the emergency powers of the pandemic.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 04:57
  #985 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 1,118
Received 71 Likes on 43 Posts
Originally Posted by CaptCloudbuster
Looks like you’re wrong again X…… why are you here on a professional Pilots BB anyhow?
Presumably you refer to where I state, I don't believe a safe workplace and covid argument will ever get up in law. Has there been one yet.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 05:00
  #986 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 225
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Xeptu
Personally I don't give a ****, I'm still not doing it, nor do I believe a safe workplace and covid argument will ever get up in law.
And that's another reason why I know you're not a lawyer.


It keeps getting up in law in a bunch of different jurisdictions, it's not too hard to find the cases.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 05:04
  #987 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 225
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Xeptu
Presumably you refer to where I state, I don't believe a safe workplace and covid argument will ever get up in law. Has there been one yet.
Ampclamp posted this link just below your first post, but here it is again: Challenge to COVID-19 vaccine mandate fails in NSW Supreme Court The anti-mandate mob got their backsides handed to them on a plate fairly thoroughly, in legal terms. It was explained to them in reasonably simple terms how numerous of their points were wrong, misguided or not applicable to the current circumstances; not that that has stopped them trying to pass the plate around looking for more donations to fight appeal after appeal.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 05:05
  #988 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 1,118
Received 71 Likes on 43 Posts
Originally Posted by De_flieger
And that's another reason why I know you're not a lawyer.


It keeps getting up in law in a bunch of different jurisdictions, it's not too hard to find the cases.
I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be, If it was dismissed, it didn't get up.

P.S show me one that was not against a public health order that got up.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 05:10
  #989 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The bush
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Xeptu
I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be, If it was dismissed, it didn't get up.
Yes, fortunately the legal "vibe" from The Castle movie does not hold much water in real life.
The Banjo is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 05:15
  #990 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 225
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Xeptu
I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be, If it was dismissed, it didn't get up.


P.S show me one that was not against a public health order that got up.
I think you may have misunderstood. NSW introduced mandates within certain industries and jobs, some people challenged this all the way up to the NSW Supreme Court. The challenge was dismissed, not the public health order / vaccine mandates. The Supreme Court, in a dry, formal sort of way, told the people making the challenges to go pound sand.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 05:29
  #991 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the argument is over.
I have just tried to book a restaurant in Melbourne after Dan announced the opening up.
No luck. Everything booked. For fully vaxxed patrons only.
Anti-vaxxers are going to be very lonely sitting at home while everybody else is down at the pub.
And I dont think QF will be giving them a roster next bid period either.
Life will become very constrained from here on.
Xeptu “on the Swan” I hope you are not on the 787 , assuming that is you are a Pilot
It will be going via Darwin from now on.
Alt Flieger is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 05:33
  #992 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 1,118
Received 71 Likes on 43 Posts
Originally Posted by De_flieger
I think you may have misunderstood. NSW introduced mandates within certain industries and jobs, some people challenged this all the way up to the NSW Supreme Court. The challenge was dismissed, not the public health order / vaccine mandates. The Supreme Court, in a dry, formal sort of way, told the people making the challenges to go pound sand.
Precisely, "A PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER" made by an appropriate authority, for which I have no issue. The issue is a private/ listed company doing that for all of it's existing employees, whether that is required or not. In QF's case long haul flight crew are required to be vaccinated for the countries they operate to and the crew accept that in their agreements. The office girl or the baggage handler, those not impacted by any public health order hasn't agreed to that. That's where the objection to a company mandate is.

When I say a safe workplace and covid argument will never get up is in the case where someone claims to have been infected in a workplace, whether that be an employee or member of the public.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 05:38
  #993 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 225
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by dr dre
It looks as if a lot of these court cases challenging vaccine mandates are just scams by dodgy lawyers to fleece money from gullible anti-vaxxers:

Crowdfunded lawyers and the rise of anti-vax, COVID denialist sentiment
That's a big part of it for sure, dr dre. It's hard to think of a better or more effective group to scam, you're targetting a self-selecting group who have demonstrated poor critical thinking skills and a willingness to listen to questionable people on the internet, they're smart enough to find the YouTube videos that sound about right and the two paragraphs taken out of context from a 40 page report, but not well-educated enough in highly specialised fields to realise the medical terminology being used is gibberish so they are a demographic you can easily find and convince. You know they are employed (FOR NOW!) so they've got money to donate. It's even better if the mandates come from someone they dont like... you hate Dan Andrews? Alan Joyce? Berejiklian or Paluszczuk or Morrison? Channel that anger, share some inflammatory memes, surround them with people telling them how right they are in Telegram chats and private Facebook groups, whip them up then click here to help out with our gofundme. You too can be part of the team of brave freedom fighters, (have a William Wallace Braveheart meme!) from the comfort of your laptop computer, just enter your credit card details here (and the CVN is that little three digits printed on the back) .

Once you've roped them in, tell them they are fighting the good fight, standing up against "The Man", and each and every defeat is actually proof of the righteousness of their cause, and just one more donation will help to prove it in the County Court, no the Supreme Court, no, the Federal Court, no, the High Court! Just one more donation is all we need...no-one wants to admit they've been scammed so once the first donation is in, it's very likely they will keep donating again and again...until the money is all gone and the court cases lost over and over again, and they'll drift away.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 05:57
  #994 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Aus
Age: 42
Posts: 381
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by De_flieger
That's a big part of it for sure, dr dre. It's hard to think of a better or more effective group to scam, you're targetting a self-selecting group who have demonstrated poor critical thinking skills and a willingness to listen to questionable people on the internet, they're smart enough to find the YouTube videos that sound about right and the two paragraphs taken out of context from a 40 page report, but not well-educated enough in highly specialised fields to realise the medical terminology being used is gibberish so they are a demographic you can easily find and convince. You know they are employed (FOR NOW!) so they've got money to donate. It's even better if the mandates come from someone they dont like... you hate Dan Andrews? Alan Joyce? Berejiklian or Paluszczuk or Morrison? Channel that anger, share some inflammatory memes, surround them with people telling them how right they are in Telegram chats and private Facebook groups, whip them up then click here to help out with our gofundme. You too can be part of the team of brave freedom fighters, (have a William Wallace Braveheart meme!) from the comfort of your laptop computer, just enter your credit card details here (and the CVN is that little three digits printed on the back) .

Once you've roped them in, tell them they are fighting the good fight, standing up against "The Man", and each and every defeat is actually proof of the righteousness of their cause, and just one more donation will help to prove it in the County Court, no the Supreme Court, no, the Federal Court, no, the High Court! Just one more donation is all we need...no-one wants to admit they've been scammed so once the first donation is in, it's very likely they will keep donating again and again...until the money is all gone and the court cases lost over and over again, and they'll drift away.
Wow, this needs to be framed!
turbantime is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 14:43
  #995 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Gate 69
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Next they will be mandating hearing protection be worn during the walk-around. And you'll have to show proof that you have them before they will unlock the door. Crazy. I feel like my right to go deaf is being violated.
Near Miss is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 21:30
  #996 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 356
Received 115 Likes on 46 Posts
On another thread I mentioned last weeks Gruen episode. It was "Grouse".
Later in that episode there was an amusing pitch encouraging people to get vaccinated……

ABC Gruen - What's in it? Go to the 23:30 mark.
C441 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 21:51
  #997 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Doomadgee
Posts: 281
Received 47 Likes on 25 Posts
Originally Posted by Near Miss
Next they will be mandating hearing protection be worn during the walk-around. And you'll have to show proof that you have them before they will unlock the door. Crazy. I feel like my right to go deaf is being violated.
Stupid Analogy. I actually thought It was stupid to mandate wearing hearing protection. I knew of more instances of colleagues being hit an injured by ground vehicles because they couldn't hear them. One of my colleagues even detected an unserviceable aircraft by hearing a pump that was running when it shouldn't have been. Nope, compulsory wearing of hearing protection - what a joke, and of course the only place in the world where that occurred - you guessed it - Australia- Nanny state extreme.
Capn Rex Havoc is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 21:58
  #998 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,789
Received 415 Likes on 229 Posts
Hearing protection is mandated airside because a growing number of those stupid enough not to wear it were starting to make law suits for hearing loss. Who would've thunk you lose hearing around constant loud noises hey...

On a side note it is actually a good analogy for mandating against stupid to protect yourself from their future actions.

By the way most PPE requirements are not that you have to wear hearing protection, it must be carried and used when exposed to high level noise. Sounds perfectly reasonable to the average human being, it's also the OSH requirement for high noise areas in the USA, so it's not just 'nanny state Australia' that requires it.

Last edited by 43Inches; 18th Oct 2021 at 22:10.
43Inches is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 22:10
  #999 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 399
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mandates and requirements, why do we need them?

In this modern litigious world, the basics of common sense have gone out the window. The erosion of peoples ability to think for themselves is gathering momentum everyday, leaving us with a robot workforce that needs an SOP for everything.

When VA got the A330, Captains wrote to the training department requesting an SOP for when they could allow the F/O to taxi the aircraft. The answer they received was “ you’re the captains, you decide”. It didn’t go down well.

I have had a check captain tell me not to do the walk around with sunglasses on 😎 because I might miss something in the wheel well. I replied that I was clever enough to remove the sunglasses if I needed to due to differing light levels.

Disembarking an aircraft via the tarmac in the Gold Coast one morning, using the same walkway as the passengers, I was accosted by the airport security guy and was told that I wasn’t wearing my Hi Vis Vest and therefore could be subject to a fine. I asked him “how did you see me if I didn’t have my vest on?” He didn’t get it😂😂

I also mentioned that 250 untrained, non ASIC holding passengers managed to safely follow the marked walkway from the aircraft to the terminals without incident, so I think the risk is low of me getting injured on my 50 metre walk.

We all need to take some responsibility for ourselves, do what is right, and if you don’t want to do something, ie: Vax, then maybe find another profession that suits you.
Roj approved is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2021, 22:17
  #1000 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,789
Received 415 Likes on 229 Posts
I have had a check captain tell me not to do the walk around with sunglasses on 😎 because I might miss something in the wheel well. I replied that I was clever enough to remove the sunglasses if I needed to due to differing light levels.
That's someone that really should not be a check captain. Going against basic OHS procedure which could open himself and the company to litigation should a number of hires 'happen' to get vision issues a few years later, same goes for hearing. Stick to policy and procedure, it's written to protect you and the company. Go outside it and you ride the wild train of 'I made it up' law. Why do companies now provide sunscreen, ear plugs etc, because they have to to protect themselves.

Disembarking an aircraft via the tarmac in the Gold Coast one morning, using the same walkway as the passengers, I was accosted by the airport security guy and was told that I wasn’t wearing my Hi Vis Vest and therefore could be subject to a fine. I asked him “how did you see me if I didn’t have my vest on?” He didn’t get it😂😂
By the way those passengers walking around are the legal responsibility of the company and PIC until they enter the terminal. When you walk airside not during normal embarkation you are technically not being supervised so hi-vis etc is required.
43Inches is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.