Thread by @arkmedic

BREAKING:
#NSW Australia Supreme Court Judge rules against the plaintiffs in Kassam vs Hazzard on all counts.

Essentially, your right to your bodily autonomy is no longer your choice according to Justice Beech-Jones.

This is not over yet.
#holdtheline

Now, the question comes:
If a judge rules a group of people must receive a treatment that is of no benefit to them, and causes harm, does that judge become vicariously liable for the consequences?

"The Court" aka Justice Beech-Jones declared that the dispute over the science (i.e. that the vaccine was ineffective at preventing transmission) was not a matter for the court. Yet it was the sole reason for the orders made by the government.

Is the court compromised?

Worth knowing who's who when the single judge of the supreme court rules that the fundamental rights of a person can be overridden by the unhinged rulings of an overweight old white guy with a narcissistic agenda and his cronies.



Who is Suzie Miller? austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NS…

TFW you are married to the founder of "Australian Lawyers for Human Rights" and you just ran roughshod over the most fundamental one.

WHOA!!!
The judge in the case brought against the NSW government is on a short list for the federal high court.

Absolutely should have recused.
After the $65m #Macartney pay-for-push revelations the conflicts of interest in this case keep coming.
afr.com/politics/feder…

If it wasn't enough that Justice Beech-Jones didn't recuse himself on that major conflict of interest, how is it possible to maintain objectivity when your spouse is an activist?

Why did she change her twitter name on the 27th Sept?