Vladimir Palaszczuk

Powers imposing such significant human rights limitations cannot continue without proper oversight, transparency and external review… The Commission recommends this Bill not proceed and instead be replaced with comprehensive, human rights compatible pandemic legislation… Any limitations on rights should be necessary and proportionate, and the justification for those limitations should be backed by evidence.”

– Scott McDougall has officially advised Parliament that covid emergency powers must be ended – now. The Premier extended them anyway.

This entry was posted in Left-wing extremism, Rule of law, State politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Vladimir Palaszczuk

  1. Entropy says:

    He isn’t calling for an end of CHO powers, he wants it enshrined in its own Act!
    I disagree with a separate act.
    You make something and eventually it is used. And inevitably to give it teeth would be more authoritarian than the current arrangements.
    We need less legislation, not more.

  2. twostix says:

    Yes this stinks like an attempt to begin to formalise and permanently cement in the “emergency powers” as business as usual governance via legislation, as in Victoria.

    In 2009 the WHO redefined what a “Pandemic” is, they removed the requirement that there be visible sickness and death in a community from the list. When the WHO declare a “global pandemic”, all signatory countries must break out the biosecurity apparatus we’ve all agreed to build over the last 10 years.

    We’ve now had two in ten years.

    They’re regulating illness like they regulated economies this time last century.

  3. C.L. says:

    The advantage of legislation is that legal limits can be enunciated, though.
    At the moment, it’s just the Vibe of The Thing from day to day.
    Pretty obviously, McDougall wants strict limitations. This would also allow people to sue the government and win.

  4. C.L. says:

    Ultimately, however, you’re right, Stix. The left now has this weird frontier cause mentality re health. Palaszczuk and D’Ath Vaider say they need the emergency ‘powers’ to keep us ‘safe.’ The Premier – three times divorced/splitsville by 52 and with no children – demonstrated her barren totalitarianism recently when she decided one rainy afternoon to panic the parents of Brisbane into rescuing their children early from school and causing a city-wide stampede. Her excuse was keepingussafe. The thing is, the SE corner’s literal army of public servants will go on voting for her.

  5. Boambee John says:

    The thing is, the SE corner’s literal army of public servants will go on voting for her.

    Didn’t the Queensland Audit Office report recently that, if planned expansion of PS numbers goes ahead, services will have to be reduced to pay the salaries?

  6. twostix says:

    You analyse is good but it’s missing that Palaszczuk isn’t alone, she’s riding on the back of a generation of parents who, aren’t. A lot of “parents” of this generation love this stuff C.L.

    And like old barren Pala and her coven, they’ve never raised children either. They have them, but they obediently and proudly handed them over as toddlers to the “early learning” system age 12 months. They expect the state to look after the welfare of their kids, are hyper risk-averse, and they are are still deeply child-like and deferential themselves in terms of authority.

    We had a showdown with the school last year, we always chaffed hard against the “lockdowns” that they place children under multiple times a year – a form of psychological terror that some schools seem to revel in subjecting kids to. Where they pull the blinds and make the kids hide under their desks waiting for some great menacing force to stalk by the window. Imagine what this does to five year olds. Anyway, in an obvious attempt to expand their power, last year the primary school attempted to “lockdown” the school due to the threat of a thunderstorm after the school day had ended. The particularly significant moment was this was happening right at the end of the day as parents were there to pick up the kids. They sent an SMS saying there were not going to “release” the children until it was “safe”, despite parents being right there.

    My mrs who is really quite a hero in these matters marched in right past the fat miserable gluttonous principal guarding the back gate and yanked out little ones out, she and only a handful of other mothers did so. Most of the parents feebly waited outside the gate in the pouring rain, or in their cars, unsure of what to do or what they were “allowed” to do, having been told that they were not allowed to “have” their children until the school said so.

    The storm never even eventuated!

    But most of the parents – mothers, were in full support of Being Safe.

    Things are bad man.

  7. Lee says:

    Don’t worry, the ABC is right on to this.
    Oh, wait …

  8. C.L. says:

    They sent an SMS saying there were not going to “release” the children until it was “safe”, despite parents being right there.

    Deranged.

  9. Lee says:

    I am old enough to remember a time when the left didn’t trust governments (mainly those not of their persuasion) and most certainly would not put their trust in governments to keep their children “safe.”
    The state certainly has no right to come between parents and their children, except when the children are demonstrably unsafe with their parents. But then the police and courts are involved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.