by Dr. Elizabeth Evans, Daily Sceptic:
The NI Government is currently running a public consultation on the Orwellian Public Health Bill. The new Bill is seeking to upgrade and strengthen the existing Public Health Act and bring it into alignment with the World Health Organisation’s notorious International Health Regulations. Human Rights Lawyer Michael Brentnall has analysed the 79-page policy document in detail and explains what he found in a highly informative video interview. He describes the proposed NI Public Health Bill as “spine-chilling” and “the most frightening piece of proposed piece of legislation I have ever read”. Mr. Brentnall says that this Bill has “the potential to take us to a dystopian future whereby we are under the jackboot of the state”.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The Bill would give the authorities unprecedented power in a health emergency, including the ability to mandate vaccines and preventative treatment for individuals, potentially opening the door to forced vaccinations. It also seeks to give authorities the power to:
- detain and quarantine individuals for up to 28 days;
- mandate the wearing of “medical clothing” e.g. face masks;
- force medical examinations and health monitoring;
- forcibly enter premises and confiscate belongings without a warrant;
- require children to be kept off school;
- close businesses and keep adults off work;
- breach medical confidentiality and privacy by allowing wide data sharing of patient medical information with various state bodies;
- require an individual to answer questions regarding their health status;
- require a person to attend “training or advice sessions”;
- legislate as to “where the person may go or with whom the person has contact”.
A court would simply have to ascertain that a person “may be infected” or “could present” a risk to human health and infection or contamination of others. This is far too weak a position to justify the draconian and extreme restrictions and requirements detailed in the document. Forced medical examination, forced vaccination, removal and detention of a person and the restriction of movement, on the basis of an unproven risk, are gross violations of medical ethics and fundamental human rights.
The provision to remove a person to a hospital or “other facility” and detain his against his will is sinister and a breach of fundamental individual freedoms and rights. This power was greatly abused in New Zealand and some Australian states during the Covid lockdowns and amounts to internment without trial, based on unproven and unreliable testing procedures such as PCR tests.
The proposed isolation of individuals was a measure used during Covid and had serious detrimental effects on the mental and physical health of many. The risks to the individual and society far outweigh any purported benefits. Human beings are sociable, needing human company to maintain overall physical and mental health. Isolation benefits no-one, particularly children.
The legislation extends to premises, people and things, and gives the authorities (in the form of the police and other unspecified enforcement agencies) powers which they have never previously had, including powers to seize people’s property, to enter premises to disinfect or decontaminate, and to “require a person to answer questions”. There is no doubt that these powers will be open to abuse by overzealous officials or poorly trained constables.
Do we really want to create a society where officials can forcibly enter people’s homes and take them away? If someone invoked her legal right to remain silent, would the officer have the right to use physical violence to force that person to answer a question? Orders could be imposed by magistrates’ courts simply on the belief that a person may be infected or contaminated. This is an extremely vague formulation which is open to abuse and panicky decision-making at times of crisis.
The proposal to force a person to be vaccinated or to receive other prophylactic treatment, against her will and without her consent, is abhorrent and a direct assault on the principle of bodily autonomy. It violates all the current laws and codes around informed consent and ethical medical treatment. This is a hard red line that should never be crossed by the state. This clear ethical boundary between the state and the individual exists to prevent the state abusing its power to force medical treatment on a sovereign individual. Where there is risk there must be choice.
