Prime Minister

Hessen Anti 2G Case

Hessen Anti 2G Case

Re: the Legality of 2G rules to prohibit entry into shops & hospitality venues

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

Dates: Jan 31, 2022
Location: Hessen, Germany
Court: Frankfurt Administrative Court
Case #:
Plaintiff: Fashion Store Owner
Plaintiff’s Lawyer:

Defendant: State of Hessen
Trial Type:
Judge:
Status: Decided
Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated Feb 4, 2022

Significance

This is one several states now overturning this rule that indicates a shift in support for the 2g rules as well as other corona measures

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

Similar cases have also overturned this rule in Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg

Decision

a court spokeswoman explained on Monday, she can conduct her business without applying the 2G rule for the time being. [1]

Aftermath

Shortly thereafter, the city of Hanau was the first city in Hesse to decide to no longer impose the 2G rule for retail. For reasons of equal treatment, 2G can hardly be mediated after the court ruling. Hanau’s Lord Mayor Claus Kaminsky said: [1]

“Now the country is called upon to quickly provide legal clarity.” [1]

Hesse wants to lift the 2G rule for all retail in the state. Prime Minister Volker Bouffier (CDU) said on Wednesday in the state parliament in Wiesbaden that one must continue to act cautiously because the corona pandemic is not over yet. Therefore, in the future, wearing FFP2 masks will be mandatory for all retail trade in Hesse. [1]

Bouffier now decided that it no longer made sense to distinguish between basic necessities shops and other retailers. In addition, the industry is under enormous pressure. The Corona cabinet will now deal with the planned new regulations. The new regulations could come into force as early as next week. The federal and state governments had decided on the 2G rule for large parts of the retail trade in view of the increasing corona incidence figures at the beginning of December last year. In some federal states, shopping without 2G is already allowed again after courts overturned the rule. [1]

More and more federal states are saying goodbye to the 2G rule in retail on their own initiative. Schleswig-Holstein made the start, now another federal state Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania wants to follow the example of other federal states and relax the corona restrictions on trade. [2]

The spokesman for Prime Minister Manuela Schwesig (SPD) announced changes in Schwerin on Thursday. The 2G rule, intended as a nationwide uniform protective measure, is increasingly becoming a patchwork quilt and there is a risk of shopping tourism, he said. The cabinet will decide on the future regulations in the country on Tuesday. [2]

In several federal states, shopping without proof of vaccination or recovery is already allowed again because courts had overturned the corresponding 2G rule. [2]

Schleswig-Holstein’s Prime Minister Daniel Günther (CDU) announced on Wednesday that this rule would also be lifted in his state with effect from February 9th. [2]

Politicians from the coalition and opposition are now calling for such a step to be implemented nationwide. [2]

FDP leader Christian Lindner said in the RTL program “Guten Morgen Deutschland” that the 2G rule would cause economic damage without making an effective contribution to combating the pandemic. “And that’s why 2G is not required in retail, the mask is already there,” emphasized the minister on RTL and ntv.

The Bavarian Prime Minister/ CSU boss Markus Söder told the “Bild” newspaper: [2]

“With an FFP2 mask we can do without the 2G rule in retail. You only stay in shops for a short time. That could be implemented nationwide.” In gastronomy, the 2G rule can be retained, but there is no need for an additional test. In the RTL / ntv “early start” the Bavarian Prime Minister said: “We now need an entry point to the exit. The omicron wall is there now and will probably get a little bigger, but there are doors in the wall that we can see through be able.”

Deputy CDU chairman Carsten Linnemann also wants to overturn the 2G rule for retail. [2]

“If you don’t have the acceptance of certain measures, people won’t participate either,” Linnemann told the magazine “Cicero” (online). It cannot be conveyed to anyone that the 2G rule in retail still applies in some federal states, while it has already been abolished a few kilometers away in neighboring federal states.

AfD parliamentary group leader Alice Weidel demanded on Thursday: [2]

“The repeal of the discriminatory, unconstitutional and health-politically pointless 2G and 3G rules is overdue, and not step by step, but immediately and in all their absurd variations.” Referring to other European countries, Weidel called for a deadline for the complete lifting of all corona requirements. “And not someday, but very soon,” she added.

Further Research

Court Documents:

Read the Court Ruling

In the news:

…More information is needed…

Media

……

source: ….

….

source: ….

….

source: ….

Back to All Cases

Constitutional Crisis Case

Constitutional Crisis Case

Re: the Legality of the government’s ability to invoke the Covid Emergency Measures & specifically to violate the Right of Travel

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

Date Filed: Jan 26, 2022
Location: Canada
Court: The Applicants request to be heard at Ottawa
Case #:
Plaintiff: JCCF, Brian Pickford Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic & Aedan MacDonald
Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Keith Wilson

Defendant: Minister of Transport & AG of Canada
Trial Type: Expedited
Judge:
Status: Ongoing
Verdict: TBD

*updated Jan 27, 2022

Background

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (Jan 26, 2022) filed a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking to strike down the federal government’s mandatory Covid-19 vaccine requirements for air travellers. The court action is on behalf of several Canadians from across Canada whose Charter rights and freedoms have been infringed. [1]

On October 30, 2021, the federal government announced that anyone travelling by air, train, or ship, must be fully vaccinated. The travel vaccination mandate has prevented approximately 6 million unvaccinated Canadians (15% of Canada’s population) from travel within Canada and prevents them from flying out of Canada. Some of the Canadians involved in the lawsuit cannot travel to help sick loved ones, get to work, visit family and friends, take international vacations, and live ordinary lives. [1]

The main applicant in the case is former Newfoundland Premier, The Honourable A. Brian Peckford. Mr. Peckford, is the only surviving drafter and signatory 40 years after the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted. [1]

“It is becoming more obvious that being vaccinated does not stop people from getting Covid and does not stop them from spreading it”, says the former Premier. “The government has not shown that the policy makes flying safer—it simply discriminates”, he notes. [1]
“When I heard Prime Minister Trudeau call the unvaccinated ‘racists,’ ‘misogynists, ‘anti-science’ and ‘extremist’ and his musing ‘do we tolerate these people?’ it became clear he is sowing divisions and advancing his vendetta against a specific group of Canadians—this is completely against the democratic and Canadian values I love about this country”, adds Mr. Peckford. [1]
“The federal travel ban has segregated me from other Canadians. It’s discriminatory, violates my Charter rights and that’s why I am fighting the travel ban,” explains Mr. Peckford. [1]

“Canadians have been losing hope in the Charter and our courts. We are going to put the best arguments and evidence forward so that the court can clarify where governments overstep,” concludes Mr. Wilson (Q.C., lead counsel for the legal challenge). [1]

The court will be asked to hear the case on an expedited basis given the serious infringement on Canadians’ mobility and other rights. Canada is the only country in the developed world that has banned Covid vaccine-free travellers from air travel. [1]

In an interview with Frontier Centre for Public Policy, January 12, 2022, Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford says pandemic responses by governments and medical authorities are unconstitutional and misguided and disregard relevant facts and research. [2]

He says the threshold required to override constitutional rights has not been met during the pandemic. [2]

Section One of the Charter says, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” [2]

Lockdowns and vaccine passports exceed “reasonable limits” and have never been “demonstrably justified,” according to Peckford. He says rights to work, travel, receive equal treatment under the law, and freedoms of worship and assembly have been unduly trampled. [2]

“You have a 99 per cent recovery rate from this virus…That’s hardly a threat to the state or a war or insurrection. So I take the view that this is totally inapplicable to our present circumstance,” Peckford said in an interview. [2]
“You should have to do a cost benefit analysis or some other study. And that’s not being done right now. At all. No government in Canada has done a cost benefit analysis. There’s been independent cost benefit analysis that shows that the cure is worse than the disease.” [2]

An analysis by Simon Fraser University economist Dr. Douglas Allen published in April 2021 estimated the cost-benefit ratio of lockdowns in terms of life-years was between 3.6 and 282. His conclusion, based on econometric analysis informed by 80 studies, led him to conclude that “it is possible lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history.” [2]

Significance

This case is significant for several reasons:

It is brought to the court by a signatory and drafter of the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, former Newfoundland Premier, Brian Peckford. [1]
It challenges every aspect of the federal government’s decisions as unlawful, unconstitutional and unnecessary.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The Justice Centre’s legal challenge cites violations of Charter rights including mobility, life, liberty and security of the person, privacy, and discrimination. The lawsuit also challenges whether the Minister of Transportation has the jurisdiction to use aviation safety powers to enforce public health measures. [1]

In discussing effective border control measures at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak, Canada’s chief medical officer, Dr. Tam, said: “As you move further away from that epicentre, any other border measures are much less effective. Data on public health has shown that many of these are actually not effective at all… WHO advises against any kind of travel and trade restrictions, saying that they are inappropriate and could actually cause more harm than good in terms of our global effort to contain.” (Canada House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health Meeting, February 5, 2020) [1]

The World Health Organization (“WHO”) continues to maintain that position and on January 19, 2022, urged all countries to: “Lift or ease international traffic bans as they do not provide added value and continue to contribute to the economic and social stress experienced by States Parties. The failure of travel restrictions introduced after the detection and reporting of Omicron variant to limit international spread of Omicron demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such measures over time.” The WHO repeated that countries should: “not require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 for international travel.” (World Health Organization, Statement on the tenth meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, January 19, 2022.). [1]

“Despite the confirmed science that the vaccine does not stop people from getting or spreading the virus and the repeated warnings from the WHO, it’s clear the federal government is out of step and arbitrarily restricting Canadians fundamental rights and freedoms,” says Keith Wilson, Q.C., lead counsel for the legal challenge. “It is profoundly disturbing that a marginalized group in Canada—the unvaccinated—are essentially prohibited from leaving the country,” he adds. [1]

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

Decision

To be Decided

Aftermath

…More information is needed…

Further Research

Court Documents:

Read the Complaint/ Application for Judicial Review

In the News:

Vaccine Mandates Reveal that the State is our Enemy

From Mr. Peckford’s Website:

Media

Trucker Rally Speech

https://youtu.be/mI9sXdGIYhs

source: Onum The Great

Jordan Peterson Podcast S4: E78

source: Jordan Peterson Podcast

It’s Time to Live

source: Jordan Peterson Podcast

SNP Episode #237 – Brian Peckford

source: Shaun Newman

References

Keyword

1982 Constitution, Airplane, Ban, Canada, Canadian Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Charter Rights, Chief Medical Officer, Crisis, Discrimination, Federal Travel, Jordan Peterson, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Liberty, Life, Mandate, Mobility, Newfoundland, Ottawa, Peckford, PM, Premier, Prime Minister, Privacy, Security of the Person, Segregation, Ship, Tam, Train, Travel, Trudeau, Vaccination, WHO, World Health Organization

Back to All Cases

Djokovic Visa Case

Djokovic Visa Case

Re: the Legality of denying entry into Australia without vaccination

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

Dates: Jan 9 & 16, 2022 [3]
Location: Melbourne, Australia [3]
Court: Federal Circuit & Family Court of Australia [3]
Case #:
Plaintiff: Novak Djokovic

Defendant: Australian Government
Trial Type:
Judge:
Status: Decided
Verdict #1: for the Plaintiff
Verdict #2: for the Defendant

Background

Tennis world number one Novak Djokovic said in a legal challenge on Saturday to being refused entry to Australia that he had been given medical exemption from vaccination against COVID-19 because he had contracted the illness last month. [1]

In a court filing ahead of a hearing on Monday over his visa cancellation Djokovic said he had received the exemption from tournament organizer Tennis Australia, with a follow-up letter from the Department of Home Affairs saying he was allowed into the country. [1]

Federal officials have deemed that exemption insufficient for the 34-year-old to be allowed into the country, and initially moved to cancel his visa in the hours after his arrival. [11] Authorities promptly assessed Djokovic and rejected him for entry upon arrival. His visa was canceled on the spot and he was taken into temporary immigration detention on grounds he failed to provide evidence he was double-vaccinated or had a legitimate exemption to the policy. [12]

The Serbian player, hoping to win his 21st Grand Slam at the Australian Open later this month, is on his third day in immigration detention in Melbourne – a case that has caused a sporting, political and diplomatic furor. [1]

“I explained that I had been recently infected with COVID in December 2021 and on this basis I was entitled to a medical exemption in accordance with Australian Government rules and guidance,” Djokovic said in the filing and told Australian Border Force officers that “I had correctly made my Australian Travel Declaration and otherwise satisfied all necessary requirements in order to lawfully enter Australia on my visa”. [1]

Djokovic had his first positive COVID-19 test on Dec. 16 but by Dec. 30 “had not had a fever or respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in the last 72 hours”, the filing said. [1]

On Jan. 1, it said, he received a document from Home Affairs telling him his responses indicated that he met “the requirements for a quarantine-free arrival into Australia”. [1]

The federal court has ordered Home Affairs to file its response by Sunday. The Australian Open starts on Jan. 17. [1]

At the heart of the dispute is Djokovic’s refusal to be vaccinated against COVID. Under current Australian law, all international arrivals are required to be vaccinated against COVID unless they have a medical exemption. [12] The tennis star said in the past that he opposed vaccination and “wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine in order to be able to travel.” [5]

Detainment

Djokovic’s court filing confirmed a media report that he had asked to be moved to lodgings with access to a tennis court but that his request was denied. The Park Hotel, where he is staying, is also home to dozens of asylum seekers trying to enter the country. [1]

Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic said the player had been provided with gluten-free food, tools to exercise and a sim card. [1]

“He’s staying in Park Hotel until the final decision is made,” Brnabic told Serbian media. “We’ve managed to make sure gluten-free food is delivered to him, as well as exercising tools, a laptop and a sim card so that he is able to be in contact with his family.” [1]
“It’s a positive tone from the Australian side. The Serbian government is ready to provide all the guarantees necessary for Novak to be allowed to enter Australia, the Serbian president (Aleksandar Vucic) is also involved,” Brnabic said. read more [1]

The player’s family has been vocal in its support in recent days and his father, Srdjan Djokovic, said on Saturday he was “disgusted” at his son’s treatment in Australia. Djokovic’s parents joined a protest rally in downtown Belgrade. [3]

Djokovic’s mother, Dijana Djokovic said that the conditions in the hotel in Melbourne where Djokovic is staying are “not humane.” [3]

“He doesn’t even have breakfast,” she said. “He has a wall to stare at and he can’t even see a park in front or go out of the room.” [3]

Government Response

The federal and Victorian state governments and Tennis Australia have denied responsibility for the dispute. [1]

If he fails to have his visa cancellation overturned and gets deported, Djokovic could be barred from the country for up to three years. [3]

In an emailed response to The Associated Press about what could transpire if Djokovic loses his legal fight, the Australian Border Force said: “A person whose visa has been canceled may be subject to a three-year exclusion period that prevents the grant of a further temporary visa…The exclusion period will be considered as part of any new visa application and can be waived in certain circumstances, noting each case is assessed on its own merits.” [3]

Morrison had come out firmly in support of the Australian border authorities and their initial decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa. [4]

“Djokovic’s visa has been cancelled. Rules are rules, especially when it comes to our borders. No one is above these rules,” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison tweeted at the time. [5]

Other Players

Djokovic was one of two players put into detention in a hotel in Melbourne that also houses refugees and asylum seekers. A third person, reported to be an official, left the country voluntarily after border force investigations. [3]

Meanwhile Czech player Renata Voracova, who was detained in the same detention hotel as Djokovic and had her visa revoked after issues with her exemption, [1] had already been in Australia for a week before an investigation by the border officials. She told media from the Czech Republic she’d been confined to a room and there was a guard in the corridor. [3] She left the country on Saturday, the Czech Foreign Ministry said. [1]

Significance

The drama has caused tensions between Serbia and Australia and has also become a flashpoint for opponents of vaccine mandates around the world. [1]

The tennis icon’s case has transcended sport to become an international row, with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic accusing Australia and its prime minister, Scott Morrison, of conducting a “political with hunt” against Djokovic. [4]

According to the the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) : [10] The argument of the Federal Government in the Novak Djokovic case sets a dangerous precedent in a democratic society.

“Our key concern was not whether Mr Djokovic was able to play tennis this week. Our concern is the Federal Government’s view that it did not have to prove that Mr Djokovic would foster views about vaccination that are contrary to the government, but simply that he may foster those sentiments,” said Mr Greg Barns SC, spokesperson for the ALA.
“This is a very low bar for excluding a person from Australia ….
“Using the criteria of a possible risk to public order as a reason to refuse a person entry into the country is troubling in a society supposedly committed to freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Plaintiff’s Argument

Novak Djokovic said to being refused entry to Australia that he had been given medical exemption from vaccination against COVID-19 because he had contracted the illness last month. [1]

The virtual hearing began Monday in Melbourne, with Djokovic appealing his visa cancellation amid a growing public debate over his positive coronavirus test that his lawyers used as grounds in applying for a medical exemption to Australia’s strict vaccination rules. [2]

Djokovic’s lawyers filed court papers Saturday in his challenge against deportation from Australia that show the tennis star tested positive for COVID-19 last month and recovered, grounds he used in applying for a medical exemption to the country’s strict vaccination rules. [3]

The court submission Saturday said Djokovic received confirmation from Australia’s Department of Home Affairs saying that his travel declaration had been assessed and that his responses indicated he met the requirements for quarantine-free arrival in Australia. [3]

Defendant’s Argument

Tennis Australia and the government of Victoria state, where the Australian Open is played, are blaming confusion over the precise definitions regarding grounds for medical exemptions. [3]

The Victoria state government mandated that all players, staff, fans and officials must be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 to enter the tournament.

The state, which approved the medical exemptions for Djokovic, said those exemptions for were for access to Melbourne Park, not the border.

Australian Open organizers have not commented publicly, except to tell Australian newspapers that no players have been misled over the vaccination requirements.

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

Decision #1

The Federal Circuit Court in Melbourne had ordered that Djokovic be released after stating that the Australian authorities had behaved “unreasonably” in canceling the world number one’s visa upon his arrival in the country last week. [4]

Aftermath #1

Despite being backed by Judge Anthony Kelly, who ordered his release, Djokovic was warned by government barrister Christopher Tan that Immigration Minister Alex Hawke could yet exercise his personal power to cancel Djokovic’s visa once again and deport him. [4]

However, it later emerged that no decision had been taken by Hawke and that “the minister is currently considering the matter and the process remains ongoing,” according to a spokesperson. [4]

Just four days after a federal judge ordered Djokovic released from hotel detention when his visa was revoked the first time, the minister’s decision moved to cancel the 34-year-old player’s visa citing “health and good order” grounds — just three days before the Australian Open begins [12]

Robert Kennedy Jr (a staunch advocate against Covid measures) defended Novak’s appeal for a medical exemption from vaccination is “squarely based in long-standing evidence” around the superior protection offered by natural immunity compared to vaccination. Kennedy added: [12]

“The science hasn’t changed over the last five days. Why the waffling around his visa status? Morrison’s attempt to frame the Australian citizens as the victims of Djokovic’s private health decision is a naked exercise in tyrannical political power. The ‘sacrifices’ of the Australian people Morrison refers to aren’t sacrifices at all. They are injuries borne of his nonsensical policies, and Djokovic is bringing international attention to them.”

Decision #2

Australian Minister for Immigration Hawke, successfully overturned the initial decision to cancel his visa on procedural grounds and re-imposed the penalty, citing the potential for Djokovic’s presence in the country to foster anti-vaccination sentiment. [9]

Alex Hawke’s decision to cancel the top seed and reigning champion’s visa for a second time was upheld by a court a day before the tournament started, leaving frustrated Djokovic to take a flight to Dubai rather than defend his title [6]

Announcing the decision, Hawke said the step was taken “in the public interest” while citing “health grounds.” [11]

Aftermath #2

By being deported from Melbourne, Djokovic was denied the chance to win a record 21st Grand Slam title overall, which would have moved him one ahead of great rivals Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. [7]

Morrison has backed the actions of Hawke. “Our strong border protection policies have kept Australians safe, prior to Covid and now during the pandemic.” [11]

The tennis icon, who has already received emphatic backing from the likes of Serbian president Aleksander Vucic and even Serbian royalty, will have a message of support displayed prominently on the Belgrade Tower in the Serbian capital on Sunday evening. [8]

“Nole, you are the pride of Serbia,”
the message, which will be displayed between 8pm and 9pm local time, will read, before being replaced by the Serbian tricolor. [8]

Angry Vucic, who has described the attempts by Australian immigration authorities to revoke his visa as a “witch hunt“, castigated officials for their treatment of Djokovic. [8]

“[Against] Novak, they wanted to show how the world order works and how they can [act] against everyone. With [this decision], they humiliated not Novak, but themselves,” he said in reaction to the verdict. [8]
“I spoke to Djokovic and told him we cannot wait to see him,” he added. “I told him he is always welcome in Serbia.” [8]

Djokovic could find himself sidelined for another Grand Slam with new Covid rules set to be introduced in France. after the French National Assembly approved the introduction of a controversial new vaccine pass which will exclude anyone who is not fully jabbed from restaurants, sports arenas and other venues. [7]

The legislation is set to come into force in the coming days, and was backed by Sports Minister Maracineanu. [7]

The vaccination pass has been adopted. As soon as the law is promulgated, it will become mandatory to enter public buildings already subject to the health pass (stadium, theater or lounge) for all spectators, practitioners, French or foreign professionals,” she tweeted. [7]

Elsewhere, French President Emmanuel Macron vowed earlier this month to do everything he could to “piss off” the unvaccinated population.

Further Research

Court Documents:

Read the Statement from Alex Hawke, Australian Minister for Immigration, regarding Mr Novak Djokovic

In the news:

Media

Djokovic Supporters

https://youtu.be/sOBf3TLVGdI

source: Djoker Nole

Morrison cancels Djokovic

source: Alex Christoforou

World Council for Health Supports Djokovic

Source: World Council for Health

Back to All Cases