Original Sin
A short letter to your MP about No Jab No Play laws.
The original sin in Australia was allowing the Federal, and more importantly State governments, to discriminate against the parents of unvaccinated children.
After all it is simple – if vaccinations fully work, then vaccinate your kids and don’t worry about those who don’t, and if they don’t work then making them mandatory will do nothing. Either way, mandatory vaccinations are pointless, possibly even harmful and come at a huge cost to civil rights and informed choice.
(Dr. Stefan Aeberhand, 2015 submission to VIC government)
No Jab, No Pay: Well that one is obvious isn’t it. Inject or else we will withhold State support, State welfare. That fits in neatly within the Financial Abuse definition.
No Jab, No Play: You need to think about this for a moment, the “play” is deceptive. It suggests it’s about kids playing with other kids, and for sure there is a component of that, but it’s not the 80% pareto of the subject. It should be called No Jab, No Job.
Amelia has drafted a simple, to the point letter, that can be sent to your local MP, and easily repurposed based on your location. It makes a simple and straight-forward point well.
It could be used in other Australian states and in other countries where States have similar laws (or worse laws, like in California where they require children to be vaccinated to attend school). The same point is relevant everywhere, the diseases don't discriminate between hosts based on their age, when a law allows people of one age to enter a premises unvaccinated and bars entry to people of another age who are unvaccinated it is discrimination based on age.
No Jab No Play, is a vicious law. Imagine you are parents who know full well that the vaccines are harmful, possibly VERY harmful, but you are a two-income family without any local family support (as is the case for many city dwellers nowadays), and heavily reliant on BOTH incomes, you cannot afford for one of you to not work.
Imagine taking your child in for their injections and watching them scream in pain, so you can keep your job and put food on the table. It’s a fate worse than the recent No Jab No Job policy, at least that one was forcing YOU to take the bullet. This one is forcing you to have your child take the bullet. It’s vicious.
Here is a great thread, and good reminder from Maready about the childhood vaccines that are used to keep you and your child from accessing childcare.
If you live in NSW, here are the MPs.
And here for Victoria.
With thanks to Amelia.
Dear xyz politician
I live in your Electorate, and I have decided I will vote for any candidate in the next election who pledges to fight unlawful discrimination against children by this State's government.
As you know, age-based discrimination is against the law, as defined by the (Australian) Age Discrimination Act, 2004. This State unlawfully discriminates against children based on their age by having a ‘No Jab No Play’ law which denies access to children under the age of six years to childcare facilities if they have not received vaccinations against:
chickenpox
diphtheria
haemophilus influenzae type b
hepatitis b
meningococcal
measles
mumps
pertussis
pneumococcal
polio
rubella
rotavirus and
tetanus
This while permitting people over the age of 18 to spend the entire day every day at the same childcare facilities as an employee of the facility if they have received vaccines against only chickenpox, measles, mumps, pertussis, and rubella, flu and hepatitis A, and while permitting people over the age of 18 to visit the facilities (parents, grandparents, visiting tradespeople and politicians) as often as they like and sometimes for extended periods (e.g. when politicians want to have their photos taken with children in the run up to an election) if they are unvaccinated.
Unlike our government, infectious diseases do not discriminate against people based on their age, infectious diseases can be caught by and passed on by people of all ages. So, it can't be argued that it is a necessary public health measure to exclude young unvaccinated people from these facilities while you permit older unvaccinated and older partially vaccinated people access to these facilities.
It also suggests you have absolutely no faith in vaccines. Do they give a person protection or not?
What is the point in giving a child vaccines against 13 diseases if you then have to ensure the child doesn't have contact with unvaccinated children but at the same time it’s okay to let the child kiss and cuddle unvaccinated relatives and spend all day with partially vaccinated adult professional carers?
If you agree with me that it is absurd and legally and ethically indefensible for the government of this State to support both the Age Discrimination Act and the No Jab No Play Act please inform me what steps you will take if re-elected to deal with this matter.
Yours sincerely
Thank you for reading this Substack.
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to a good cause.
I am always looking for good, personal GMC (pandemic and jab) or childhood vaccination stories. Shared stories are remembered and help others.
In the comments, please let me know what’s on your mind.
You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com
If you are Covid-jab injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:
FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein
Vaccines - the more you read,. the bigger the scam you realize they are.
I now regret every vaccine I have ever taken (and I am sure I have voluntarily taken more in adult life than almost everyone I know due to travelling so much to "third world countries").
Thanks Big Pharma for your latest round of BS, you turned someone who was one of your pin cushions into a 100% anti-vaxxer.
Question, if I never took a Covid murder stab, does that still make me a Pureblood given what I just wrote? I sincerely hope so.
The thing about the letter is that it doesn’t challenge the belief that the government has the right to impose vaccines in the first place. It suggests the imposition would be okay if the vax were effective. That is giving up too much ground.