"One of the most dangerous aspects of the Djokovic matter is the preparedness of the federal government to deem someone to be a risk to public order simply on the basis of what it perceives that person’s views might be...This is Orwellian and it is deeply troubling in a society supposedly committed to freedom of speech and freedom of thought." [Source]Notes Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns SC on the minister's powers as "God-like":
"On the basis of this sort of reasoning, a minister could say: 'Well, I'm not going to allow you into the country because you've got a very high profile and you may express views and become a lightning rod for people opposed to the US-Australian alliance'."President of Liberty Victoria Michael Stanton agreed."Deportation of a person because of a purported risk as to how others might perceive them can and will be used in the future to justify the suppression of legitimate political expression because others might engage in unrest," he said in a statement posted online. [Western Advocate]
Some findings of a Rasmussen/Heartland survey:
– Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters would oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 55% of Democratic voters would support such a proposal, compared to just 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliated voters.– Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a proposal is opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters.– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. Only 27% of all voters – including just 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated voters – favor criminal punishment of vaccine critics.– Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a policy would be opposed by a strong majority (71%) of all voters, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of unaffiliated voters saying they would Strongly Oppose putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities.”– While about two-thirds (66%) of likely voters would be against governments using digital devices to track unvaccinated people to ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing from others, 47% of Democrats favor a government tracking program for those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.
I’ve come to learn that most Americans have no idea how dire the situation in Europe really is. Obviously, America has very heated debates about vaccine mandates too, but they don’t have a digital vaccine passport in place on a federal level. So whenever I talked about QR-codes that grant us access to everyday life, they always looked at me somewhat vaguely. And that’s exactly the issue here. What most people don’t know is the fact that the system we already have in place here in Europe, is a system that can be used for just about anything, not just your vaxx status. And it will be, because the people who rule us are actually very open about their intentions of doing just that.This is all part of a plan called the ‘European Digital Idenity' project. Which basically comes down to every single European citizen having a digital wallet, that contains your medical records, identification information, soon possibly your Central Bank Digital Currencies; and basically anything else there is to know about you. In short: It’s a tracking app. The government, or whoever has access to your information, will know exactly where you are, who you are with and what you spend your money on. What could possibly go wrong there?Well, a lot. As I said on Tucker Carlson Tonight: “We’re headed towards a new system, a tyrannical regime of mass surveillance and control. Here in Europe, we already have a system in place that reminds us of the early phases of a social credit system. We are literally turning into China”.And I meant it. Because although in some countries the restrictions are being lifted, what I was afraid of indeed happened: Austria has fallen. Last Thursday, the National Council in Austria (NB: not Australia) passed a law making the Covid vaccines mandatory on a nationwide level; meaning every citizen above the age of 18 will have to pay massive fines up to €15,000 a year, for the ‘crime’ of being unvaccinated. When I say Austria has fallen and Europe is no longer ‘‘part of the Free West”, I’m not saying that to sound dramatic. I deeply believe that once a state no longer honors its citizens' bodily integrity, freedom is a concept of the past. And there is no reason to think this will be limited to just Austria. On the contrary, actually. Germany has announced it also wants to enforce mandatory vaccination on a nationwide level, most likely starting at the end of February. And we all know that if Germany does something, it’s only a matter of time till the rest of the EU follows. On that note, Germany has also announced this week that they will be barring parliamentary members who are unvaccinated from entering the Bundestag. De facto this comes down to an exclusive entry-ban for members from the Alternative für Deutschland party. Unsurprisingly, this is a right-wing opposition party. And let’s not forget that the German head of the office for the protection of the constitution has stated that people who protest against the Covid restrictions are potential ‘‘enemies of the state’’...
Mandates have a profound effect on medical practice. Once a vaccine is mandated for children, the manufacturer and the physician administering the vaccine are substantially relieved of liability for adverse effects. (3) The relationship of patient and physician is shattered: in administering the vaccine, the physician is serving as the agent of the state. To the extent that the physician simply complies, without making an independent evaluation of the appropriateness of the vaccine for each patient, he is abdicating his responsibility under the Oath of Hippocrates to “prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.” Instead, he is applying the new population-based ethic in which the interests of the individual patient may be sacrificed to the “needs of society.”If a physician advises against a mandated vaccine, he faces increased legal liability if the patient is infected with the disease. In addition, he may risk his very livelihood if he is dependent upon income from “health plans” that use vaccine compliance as a measure of “quality.”It is perhaps not surprising, although still reprehensible, that physicians sometimes behave in a very callous manner toward parents who question the need for certain vaccines. I have even heard reports of physicians threatening to call Child Protective Services to remove the child from parental custody if a parent refused a vaccine — even after the child had screamed inconsolably for hours after each of the first two doses. The federal policy of mandating vaccines marks a monumental change in the concept of public health. Traditionally, public health authorities restricted the liberties of individuals only in case of a clear and present danger to public health. For example, individuals infected with a transmissible disease were quarantined. Today, a child may be deprived of his liberty to associate with others, or even of his supposed right to a public education, simply because of being unimmunized. Yet, if a child is uninfected, his unprotected status is not a threat to anyone else. On the other hand, immunization of a child who is already infected (or who becomes infected in spite of the vaccine) is of no protective value to anyone. This represents a reversal of the earlier policy of preventing exposure to infectious agents. In fact, it takes exposure — as to contaminated needles or promiscuous sex — as a given, while begging the question of whether protection against hepatitis B has any overall effect on morbidity or mortality in a population that also exposes itself to worse hazards.Read the rest.
Can you see the common denominator? 
Wokeness—a political agenda with a superficial commitment to diversity and inclusion—has become a global ideological movement. And, more than government policy, it’s big corporations pushing this agenda and punishing those who refuse to comply.Weeks after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis in 2020, Bell Media hired me to be part of the iHeartRadio talk network as a radio host. From my perspective, Bell Media/iHeartRadio recognized that despite its publicized commitment to valuing people from different backgrounds, they had yet to ever hire a fulltime black talk radio host in their Canadian market. What my experience made clear is that the company failed to consider what it would mean to sincerely engage someone from a black community, without expectations that we conform to the pressures of tokenism.Elite institutions often make assumptions about a person’s political views based on what he looks like or where his parents are from. Soon after being hired, I could see that Bell Media/iHeartRadio erred in making the same assumptions. I felt that they were hoping to have hired a liberal stereotype of a black man who espouses their expected political talking points. Bell Media/iHeartRadio was not prepared for a black man who loves his country, rejects victimhood politics, maintains strong ties to his faith community, and shares heterodox views on a wide range of issues.Read the rest.
"The alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on the socialistic fallacy that a free, unregulated market will inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies. But, in fact, no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market. Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action. (For a full demonstration of this fact, I refer you to the works of the best economists.) The Antitrust laws were the classic example of a moral inversion prevalent in the history of capitalism: an example of the victims, the businessmen, taking the blame for the evils caused by the government, and the government using its own guilt as a justification for acquiring wider powers, on the pretext of “correcting” the evils."“Free competition enforced by law” is a grotesque contradiction in terms." [“Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1962, 1]
Here are a few of them...When did the Covidian fascists cross the line for you?
— Amy Peikoff (@AmyPeikoff) January 29, 2022
1. Two weeks to flatten the curve
2. Lockdowns beyond two weeks
3. Dividing workforce into "essential and non-essential"
4. Flip-flop on masks
5. Mandating masks
6. Withholding approval for testing...
4. Flip-flop on masks 9. Government protocols that deny early treatment 15. Mandating vaccinations for travel, restaurants, shopping, and other good things in life 16. Governments releasing official statements shaming the unvaccinated, sowing division 17. Mainstream media, refusing to help expose cover-ups about origins of the virus, vaccine injuries, data crimes, or other challenges to "the science" 22. In some places already, mandating the vaccines for kids, and even legalizing their administration without parental consent 23. Social media as an accomplice in pushing the narrative, banning, throttling, and labeling anything which questions "the science" 24. QR Codes for "vaccine status," as an entree to social credit scores.Read the entire list.
When an institution reaches the degree of corruption, brazen cynicism and dishonor demonstrated by the U.N. in its shameful history, to discuss it at length is to imply that its members and supporters may possibly be making an innocent error about its nature—which is no longer possible. There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China—an action forbidden by the U.N.’s own Charter—was a “moment of truth,” a naked display of the United Nations’ soul.What was Red China’s qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China? The fact that she was a friend of the United States.
Mark Dolan has made some excellent observations in his commentary, "Novak Djokovic has won the argument, game set, and match":
Keypoints:"Australia’s decision to cancel tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa for a second time was driven by fear that letting him stay could foster antivaccine sentiment during a surge in Covid-19 cases, court documents show. Immigration minister Alex Hawke didn’t dispute Djokovic’s claim of a medical exemption from rules that travelers to Australia must be vaccinated against Covid-19, according to documents made public Saturday. Hawke, who canceled Djokovic’s visa on Friday, said allowing the player to stay could sway some Australians against getting vaccinated."[...] "Djokovic’s lawyer Nick Wood argued in a late-night court hearing on Friday that Hawke’s reasoning was flawed because he hadn’t considered that Djokovic’s deportation could have an impact on antivaccine sentiment."[...] "Hawke didn’t refute Djokovic’s contention that he posed a negligible health risk, documents showed. Djokovic has said his Covid-19 infection in December confers similar protection to a vaccine, the documents said." [Australia Feared Letting Novak Djokovic Stay Would Fuel Antivaccine Sentiment, Stuart Condie, 15 Jan 2022"]It is instructive to note that Djokovic was not finally deported for an invalid medical exemption (the Australian federal government ended up not questioning that validity in the final hearing), nor that he was a physical threat to others (as he tested negative for COVID), nor that he was unvaccinated (as he has "natural immunity" from previous COVID infections which exempts him from the vaccination).Djokovic was deported because he may be seen as a symbol for "anti-vaccination sentiment" by the Federal government, according to Mr. Hawke, and that under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act he has the legal power to cancel the visa held by Djokovic “on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.”Comments Mr. Hawke:
“Mr Djokovic is such a person of influence and status. Having regard to the matters set out above regarding Mr Djokovic’s conduct after receiving a positive COVID-19 result, his publicly stated views, as well as his unvaccinated status, I consider that his ongoing presence in Australia may encourage other people to disregard or act inconsistently with public health advice and polices in Australia."“In addition, I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission.”“These matters go to the very preservation of life and health of many members of the general community and further are crucial to the maintaining the health system in Australia, which is facing increasing strain in the current circumstances of the pandemic.”(Note that in Australia's population of those age 16 and over, more than 90 percent have been double vaccinated.)
***
This brings to my mind these wise words by Rav Arora:"Honesty, nuance, and compassion are especially needed when it comes to personal health choices. We are only born with one body and we must make medically informed decisions at our own volition without governmental coercion or political pressure."
Related: Novak Djokovic: Global Standard Bearer for Body AutonomyNovak Djokovic was NOT deported for being unvaxxed.
— Avi Yemini (@OzraeliAvi) January 16, 2022
The immigration minister conceded the tennis star had a VALID exemption. Hawke deported Djokovic because he deemed Novak's PRESENCE in the country a threat of spreading DISSENT.
Aussies will eventually look back in shame. pic.twitter.com/DJP7AYRb39