NEW ZEALAND – According to reports, a New Zealand judge on February 25th had ruled that the COVID jab mandates being imposed on New Zealand’s police and Defence Force were “unlawful” and that said mandates were to be “set aside.”
These COVID jab mandates in New Zealand had required that Defence Force personnel, police constables, recruits, and officers needed to have both of their shots by March 1st or else they’d be fired.
Between the police and Defence Force, roughly less than 300 individuals have remained unjabbed, with three of these individuals having brought the matter up for judicial review on January 6th.
Having the backing of 37 other colleagues who’d provided them with affidavits decrying the mandates, Justice Cook issued his decision on February 25th in which he found the jab mandates were at odds with section 11 and section 15 of the Bill of Rights Act.
“The order limits the right to be free to refuse medical treatment recognised by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (including because of its limitation on people’s right to remain employed), and it limits the right to manifest religious beliefs for those who decline to be vaccinated because the vaccine has been tested on cells derived from a human foetus which is contrary to their religious beliefs.”
Justice Cook pointed out in his decision that the imposition of such mandates were never about thwarting the spread of COVID, but were rather a means to “ensure the continuity of the public services, and to promote public confidence in those services.”
Yet, the judge found that the jab mandates didn’t accomplish any sort of “continuity of the public services.”
“In essence, the order mandating vaccinations for police and NZDF staff was imposed to ensure the continuity of the public services, and to promote public confidence in those services, rather than to stop the spread of Covid-19. Indeed health advice provided to the government was that further mandates were not required to restrict the spread of Covid-19. I am not satisfied that continuity of these services is materially advanced by the order.”
But the biggest blow to jab mandates in current times, which the judge acknowledged in his ruling, was the existence of the Omicron variant that spreads between the jabbed and unjabbed alike.
“Covid-19 clearly involves a threat to the continuity of police and NZDF services. That is because the Omicron variant in particular is so transmissible. But that threat exists for both vaccinated and unvaccinated staff. I am not satisfied that the order makes a material difference, including because of the expert evidence before the court on the effects of vaccination on Covid-19 including the Delta and Omicron variants.”
While Justice Cook highlighted that his decision should not “be understood to question the effectiveness and importance of vaccination,” he came to the conclusion that “the order made in the present case is nevertheless unlawful and is set aside.”
One day prior to the issued ruling, protesters opposed to jab mandates in Christchurch had gathered outside of Tuahiwi School as New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was leaving an event held at the school.
As Ardern’s vehicle was pulling out of the school, protesters shouted the likes of “shame on you” amidst a myriad of other phrases conveying their displeasure with the prime minister.
Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a “vaccine.” According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it’s intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.