Read the Dissenting Opinion of Fair Work Commissioner Lyndall Dean in a ‘No Jab, No Job’ Case (Although, Sadly, the Other Two Commissioners Found in Favor of the Employer)
By Staff Reporter
Wow. Read the dissenting opinion of Fair Work Commissioner Lyndall Dean in a ‘No Jab, No Job’ case (although, sadly, the other two commissioners found in favour of the employer):
 Research in the context of COVID-19 has shown that many who are ‘vaccine-hesitant’ are well educated, work in the health care industry and have questions about how effective the vaccines are in stopping transmission, whether they are safe to take during pregnancy, or if they affect fertility.
37 A far safer and more democratic approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy, and therefore increasing voluntary vaccination uptake, lies in better education, addressing specific and often legitimate concerns that people may hold, and promoting genuine informed consent.
It does not lie in censoring differing opinions or removing rights and civil liberties that are fundamental in a democratic nation.
It certainly does not lie in the use of highly coercive, undemocratic, and unethical mandates.
 The statements by politicians that those who are not vaccinated are a threat to public health and should be “locked out of society” and denied the ability to work are not measures to protect public health.
They are not about public health and not justified because they do not address the actual risk of COVID. These measures can only be about punishing those who choose not to be vaccinated.
If the purpose of the PHOs is genuinely to reduce the spread of COVID, there is no basis for locking out people who do not have COVID, which is easily established by a rapid antigen test.
Conversely, a vaccinated person who contracts COVID should be required to isolate until such time as they have recovered.
 Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across a whole profession or industry regardless of the actual risk, fail the tests of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness.
It is more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis and cannot be justified on health grounds.
It is a lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should be soundly rejected by courts when challenged.
 All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia.
It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the anthesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value.
 Australians should also vigorously oppose the ongoing censorship of any views that question the current policies regarding COVID. Science is no longer science if it a person is not allowed to question it.
 Finally, all Australians, including those who hold or are suspected of holding “anti-vaccination sentiments”, are entitled to the protection of our laws, including the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act.
In this regard, one can only hope that the Majority Decision is recognised as an anomaly and not followed by others.
Read the full majority and minority decisions: https://www.fwc.gov.au/