SA Mandate Case: Supreme Court

SA Mandate Case: Supreme Court

SA Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of Violating the Rights of a person’s Medical Autonomy via a state enforced injection

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: March, 2022
  • Location: South Australia
  • Court: Supreme Court
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Varnhagen, police, education & health workers
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Loretta Polson
  • Defendant:
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated March 11, 2022

Background

Nurse and AFLW Adelaide Crows player Deni Varnhagen is among a group of four education and health workers seeking a judicial review of the mandates, which they claim are invalid. In addition, The Supreme Court heard two police officers who also want to be added to the case, challenging the mandatory vaccination policy for SA Police. [1]

Two healthcare workers and two education workers all claim to have lost their jobs due to vaccine mandates introduced under SA’s Emergency Management Act. [3] Dual Adelaide AFLW premiership defender Deni Varnhagen will not be allowed to play in the competition this season after refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. [4]

The applicants are seeking an expedited hearing and have asked for a three-day trial during the week beginning March 14, which falls five days before the state election. [1]

Nurse Deni Varnhagen, the primary Plaintiff said: [2]

“We are all just here for freedom of choice basically, we all deserve the right to decide what we put into our bodies,” Ms Varnhagen said. 

“Coercion is not consent. We shouldn’t be losing our jobs or even be forced. 

“I wish I was at work caring for people, doing the things that I’m good at.” 

  •  

The mandatory vaccination direction came into effect yesterday (Nov 1, 2021), but hundreds of staff across the health system have not met the deadline. On Tuesday (Nov 2, 2021), Women’s and Children’s Hospital CEO Lindsay Gough confirmed that at her hospital alone 133 people had not been vaccinated. [1]

  •  

Lawyers for the state government said although they agreed the matter needed to be heard urgently, they may apply for an application to vacate that trial date depending on preparations and the ability to get its own expert witness. [1]

  •  

A lawyer for the applicants also foreshadowed an application to have an auxiliary judge — either retired or from interstate — hear the trial due to any perceived bias arising out of the Courts Administration Authority imposing its own vaccination mandate. [1]

The court heard the applicants would call Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky to give evidence about “technical matters relating to the vaccine”. [1]

The group’s lawyer, Loretta Polson, said outside court that “compelling, scientific, medical evidence” would be presented “to demonstrate that vaccination does not prevent COVID-19 transmission”. [1]

She also questioned the power of SA Police Commissioner Grant Stevens — the state coordinator during the coronavirus pandemic — to impose mandates. [1]

“We are amending the application to challenge a further mandate directed to police officers,” Ms Polson said. [1]

“Police officers are now being advised that they need to be vaccinated at the risk of losing their livelihood and careers. [1]

How many more insidious mandates are to be imposed upon the workers of South Australia by a public servant?” [1]

At a directions hearing on Thursday (Feb 17 2022), the court set down four days to hear the case starting on March 17. [5]

 

Significance

This case challenges the right of a government or employer to force unwanted substances into its citizens/employees

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

…More information is needed…

 

Aftermath

…More information is needed…


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…

 

Media


……

source: ….


SA Police Join Mandate Challenge

source: 7NEWS Australia


….

source: ….

 

References

  1. SA Police officers want to join Adelaide Crows AFLW player in vaccination mandate appeal
  2. More than 100 staff at Adelaide’s Women’s and Children’s Hospital refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19
  3. AFLW Crows player Deni Varnhagen challenges SA’s COVID vaccine mandate in court
  4. Unvaccinated Crow Deni Varnhagen out of AFLW season
  5. Trial over SA vaccine rules next month
  6.  

 

Keyword

AFLW, Adelaide, Australia, Crows, Deni, education, Flinders University, health workers, judicial review, Loretta Polson, mandates, Nikolai, Nurse, Petrovsky, player, professor, South Australia, Supreme Court, Vaccine, Varnhagen


Back to All Cases

 

YouTube Censorship Case

YouTube Censorship Case

YouTube Censorship Case

Re: Legality of Censoring videos on YouTube, esp. those that question the Covid narrative

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Oct 11, 2021
  • Location: Cologne, Germany
  • Court: Regional Court of Cologne
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: allesaufdentisch
  • Defendant: YouTube & Google
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: End
  • Verdict: For The Plaintiff


 

Background

Dozens of prominent German actors have banded together as part of the “allesaufdentisch” (everything on the table) freedom of expression campaign to demand a more open discussion on the Corona virus and the controversial government policies, rules and regulations. Their statements were posted in the form of short videos on YouTube. (4)

the group of leading actors, performers, artists state: “We are watching the development of political action in the Corona crisis with increasing concern. Many experts have not yet been heard in the public Corona debate. We would like to see a wide-ranging, fact-based, open and factual discourse and also an equally wide-ranging discussion of the videos.” (4)

Each actor posted a YouTube video criticizing the current suppressive policies. (4)

The site was started in September by actor Volker Bruch and others (3)
 
Two videos were deleted by YouTube for allegedly spreading Covid “misinformation”. (1) and reasons such as “violating community guidelines.” (4)
 
Specifically, it is about the videos with the titles “Fear” and “Incidence”. In “Angst”, the actor and cabaret artist Gernot Haas speaks with the neurobiologist Gerald Hüther. For several years, Hüther was on the advisory board of the online magazine Rubikon, which is criticized for spreading conspiracy ideologies. In the second video concerned, the singer and songwriter Jakob Heymann interviews the mathematician Stephan Luckhaus, who left the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina in the course of a rejected critical contribution to the lockdown.  (6)
 
German national leading daily Bild below reported on YouTube’s controversial removal of the videos: “YouTube is not a truth commission that decides what is right and what is wrong,” (4)
 
According to attorney Steinhöfel, who is part of the campaign himself in conversation with actor Wotan Wilke Möhring on the subject of freedom of expression, legal steps were taken on Monday morning. The deletions are unlawful and “a new dimension in the violation of the law by YouTube”. (6)

 

Significance

This is a case that challenges whether a private company may censor the the right of people (and in this case experts) to freely express their views and opinions. It also challenges the assumption that opinions against the official covid narrative, even those from experts may be called “misinformation.”

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information needed…

 

Decision

  • The court ruled that YouTube must restore the 2 deleted videos. (1)
  • YouTube did not tell the channel operators precisely enough which passages in their opinion violated which provision of their guidelines, a court spokeswoman said on Monday when asked. (3)
  • The Cologne Regional Court issued an injunction, ruling that YouTube’s deletion of the videos was illegal,” reported Bild, which has a copy of the court order.(5)

“According to the court, the deletion of the videos in which the artists interviewed Leipzig mathematics professor Stephan Luckhaus (68) and neurobiologist Gerald Hüther (70) was ‘unjustified’.” (5)

  • According to Bild: “YouTube did not explain which specific statements were classified as problematic” and that “the artists were not informed which passage of the video is said to have violated the guidelines”. (5)
  • YouTube is obligated to specify precisely what the problem is, and cannot rely on vague reasons, the court rules. (5)
  • Bild adds:

Even more: YouTube was only allowed to delete videos in the case of ‘an obvious, at first glance recognizable medical misinformation’ without naming concrete problematic passages. In the case of the deleted videos of #allesaufdentisch, however, it is a matter of ‘longer videos’ that ‘also contain a large number of clearly permissible statements.’” (5)

 

Aftermath

  • The platform company is now filing an objection.
  • Lawyer Joachim Steinhoefel was delighted by the Cologne Court ruling, and told BILD: “The Civil Chamber 28 of the Regional Court of Cologne has made it clear to the censorship machinery of the monopolist YouTube within hours that constitutional boundaries have been crossed here.” (5)
  • Some members of the group of actors spoke to Bild on their motives behind the government critical videos: “We are trying to talk to people. That’s democracy. To erase our voices is the sad opposite of that.”(5)

 

Further Research

…More information needed…

  1. allesaufdentisch
  2. Bild Tweet Report

 

Media

Bild reports on Youtube Censorship

source: ..

Deleted Video of Math Prof. Luckhaus

source: allesaufdentisch


Back to All Cases