-
Interpretation of SA Equal Opportunity Act 1984 Section 79A
Can anyone please give me their interpretation of Section 79A of the SA Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (see attached file with relevant sections of Act), in relation to the following:
1. It allows for discrimination of a disabled person if clause (a) and clause (b) of S79A are satisfied or met?
2. Can Section 79A be used in an argument to support discrimination occurring on medical grounds for a non-disabled person? i.e. can this section be used to apply to non-disabled people?
e.g. if a non-disabled person was refused entry to a business or an association’s premises due to declining to check in for Covid-19 contact tracing, then can they use the argument that the business entity discriminated against them checking in on medical grounds because they failed to provide medical evidence of the non-disabled person having being diagnosed with an infectious disease, or them having been issued a biosecurity control order or a public health order?
3. Given argument in 2, could it be argued that the discrimination occurring on medical grounds was unreasonable in the circumstances?
-
This discussion was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by
rtw711.
-
This discussion was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by
-
11 Replies
-
If you argue in court you lose. It’s important to understand that we only use legislation that holds them to account. If the legislation damages us, where is the evidence that we agreed to such an inequitable contract? So in court I would questions and use legislation to hold them to account, if any legislation would damage me in any way eg discriminates against me for any reason, then I would ask questions to get them as a second witness that the legislation is inequitable, has not been agreed to by me and is therefore void ab initio. These are just suggestions as to how to deal with inequitable legislation and not legal advice.
-
Thanks for your reply MJ.
I agree with what you have written and have no intention of using any legislation that could damage me or weaken my position.
I asked for members interpretation of S79A of the EO Act as it was my intention to use it against my adversary to strengthen my position. I recently wrote to the EO Commission referring to this legislation but am not 100% sure if I have interpreted S79A correctly which is why I posted my interpretation on here to see if other members agreed with mine.
My matter pertains to me being discriminated on medical grounds when I was refused entry by an incorporated Association for declining to check in manually on a paper log for Covid-19 contact tracing. They were essentially providing a medical service by collecting private information for a medical purpose and by refusing me entry they were essentially discriminating against me on medical grounds.
I don’t intend to use it in Court as hoping to get a Court order for a Court-ordered meeting to take place between the parties and ask the Association setup questions at the meeting where they will go into default and hopefully reach a settlement with them at that time. Under Section 23 of the SA Associations Incorporations Act (AIA) 1985, they are bound by their Constitutional rules and one of their rules is that they must meet to discuss the matter. To date, they are still refusing to meet with me to discuss the matter and I believe that is because they know they were in the wrong to refuse me entry as I have written to them providing all the relevant legislation they have violated by doing so. I have been communicating with them through their lawyer as they were ignoring my correspondence up until I started getting heavy with them and applying extra pressure for them to meet which they still are refusing to do. Their lawyer is playing games.
The main issue for me is have I interpreted S79A of EO Act correctly? S79A is referring to exemptions from part 5 of the Act which refers to discrimination on disability grounds. Given this, could Section 79A be used in an argument to support discrimination occurring on medical grounds for a non-disabled person? i.e. can this section be used to apply to non-disabled people? If yes, I am correct in my interpretation and can use it against my adversary to obtain a Court order through the EO Commission ordering the Association to meet with me. If I am wrong, I will proceed ahead and file an application in the Court seeking the Court-ordered meeting to take place where I should be successful in being granted this order given the Association has contravened S23 of the SA AI Act 1985 and their own constitutional rules in refusing to meet with me.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by rtw711.
-
The way I read it is they must not discriminate/treat anyone unfavourably [unfavourably is open to interpretation of course as is most wording in rules and legislation, they make it unclear on purpose, thus tempting us to argue the point] on the basis of a) any disability past present or future or b) i) so long as most people comply then they can’t discriminate against the one who doesn’t because of their disability ii) the requirement is not reasonable in the circumstances [again the word reasonable is open to interpretation] So this rule should only be used to apply to people with disabilities and cannot be used to justify discrimination against people for any other purpose. Discrimination because you haven’t agreed to an inequitable contract (hopefully you gave them a conditional acceptance to make your case airtight) will not stand up contractually. Where is their evidence that covid – 19 was a threat which required people to do what they were asking? etc Look at the NZ Human Rights Act 21 h) vii (attached) and see if you can find the same in the Aus legislation
-
Hi MJ, thanks for that information. That is very helpful.
In the SA EO Act in the Interpretation of the Act, they have included the following:
disability in relation to a person, means:
(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or
(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or
(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour.
However, there is nothing included in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 pertaining to discrimination, diseases, or is there a section like Section 21 (Prohibited grounds of discrimination) of NZ HR Act in the SA EO Act.
I didn’t give conditional consent unfortunately. On both occasions I signed in on the contact tracing paper log under coercion, duress and threat of menace. On the 1st occasion I stayed and participated in the club activities after checking in. On the 2nd occasion, I was refused entry by the Covid marshal despite checking in manually (i.e. writing my private info on the paper log) and have not gone back since because I have been trying to seek remedy since then. Because I had concerns about my privacy and the club committing privacy breaches and not protecting people’s privacy, I declined to check in (as well as me knowing it was unlawful and was always voluntary) and so I disguised my phone number and the Covid marshal didn’t like the mobile number I had provided, so he refused me entry. I informed the Club President that it was a breach of privacy to collect the contact tracing info they way they were doing it where anyone checking in manually could see everyone else’s private information and also the contact tracing log was left unsecured and unattended at the premises where anyone at, or entering, the premises could easily see people’s private information. I took a photo for evidence of the privacy breaches.
In my recent letter to their lawyer, I provided evidence that there only 4 covid-related deaths in SA between March 2020 and 31.7.2021 and only 1 of those deaths could be attributed to Covid (even though the SARS CoV-2 coronavirus has never been isolated and therefore never been proven to exist) becuase 73% of those deaths could be attributed to deaths from other, comorbid conditions. So the member club of the Association had no grounds to refuse me entry and thereby discriminated against me on medical grounds. They directly discriminated against me because I was the only club member on the 2 occasions to tell the club Committee members that I did not have to check in because government directions, mandates etc are not laws, or had they been lawfully enacted into the legislation with royal assent. They effectively banned me from entering for a period of 16 months with me not having gone back there since December 2020 or renewed my club membership since it expired in 2021. They also discriminated against me on privacy grounds.
The Covid-19 contact tracing direction was essentially the provision of a medical service with the collection of private information for a medical purpose and was implemented by the Association/member club in response to the SA Chief Health Officer’s (CHO) contact tracing direction. Section 51(xxiiia) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 provides a constitutional guarantee of no civil conscription of medical and dental services. Further to this, under the legislation, the Federal Biosecurity Act 2015 was in operation in the declared human biosecurity emergency period, where the States and Territories exceeded their powers by bringing in directions under their respective public health and emergency legislation that allowed for the use of force and issuing general directions, that involve biosecurity measures, in the absence of biosecurity control orders and/or public health orders.
Can you think of any questions I could include in Demand Notice to send them into commercial default if I were to do the 3 letter process i.e. Demand Notice, Default Notice and Final Notice (including a Private Settlement Agreement where each party agrees to pay me an agreed amount of compensation if they fail to provide evidence to support their claims) ?
Thanks Kevin
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by rtw711.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by
-
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by
-
-
I suggest you turn all of that wonderful information you gathered into questions. eg Is it not a breach of the Privacy ACT to demand anyone to provide you with their private information? Is it not discrimination to bar people from your premises on suspicion of them having the presence or organsisms capable of causing disease or illness? Where is your evidence that covid-19 is a life threatening illness to the level of pandemic and emergency regulations? Where is your evidence that the sars cov-2 virus has been isolated and proven to exist? etc. etc. You could then include in your notices if you wish to; If you fail refuse or neglect to answer or reply then we have reached an agreement that blah blah blah etc Perhaps include a default and liability clause so if they don’t deliver on the established agreement after three notices then there is a penalty for them to pay. You could then potentially send them an invoice for damages.
-
Thanks MJ, that is very helpful.
-
Actually, I have previously thought of including the question you included above i.e. “Where is your evidence that the sars cov-2 virus has been isolated and proven to exist?” in a Demand/Default/Final Notice. However, I think it is too risky putting it in because if I had to take the matter to Court to get a judgement order made against my adversary because the matter was not able to be settled beforehand, the judge may be reluctant to make such an order where that question appears in the affidavit or anything else related to the existence of the coronavirus strains. That question is a good setup question to ask in a meeting with an adversary, but a bit risky putting it in a Demand/Default/Final Notice.
-
Also their definition of isolation is squash a cell flat between two pieces of glass and point to what they think is a virus (which is usually just another piece of debris) whereas the correct definition of isolate is to separate the virus out from all the other debris by spinning the contents of the cell in a centrifuge and withdrawing the virus and confirm it is a virus that can transmit disease by exposing healthy subjects to it and if they all get sick or the majority with sars cov 2 then they have found the virus. Also doing a double blind study to confirm it is the virus that made them sick in a large sample of subjects. So maybe include those aspects in the question also.
-
This short video describes the correct process to find a virus (which has never been done)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/wy2wFcZaK7Jo/
bitchute.com
COVID 19 DOESN'T EXIST, IT NEVER DID.
Episode one: Offering proof that covid 19 doesn't exist anywhere, it never did, it's one big lie worldwide—an animated look at how to deliver a message to the sheep that have a difficult time seeing the truth.
-
-
-
Yes, absolutely true. No Covid anywhere. I recall reading a post on Facebook reportedly from a researcher at a Californian university in or around November 2021, who conducted an experiment and tested 2,000 Covid samples from people who had tested positive for Covid from a PCR test (which can’t be used to diagnose any disease, including infectious diseases – videos exist of Dr Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR test speaking about this publicly). The researcher found all they had was Influenza type A and B. They sent the Covid samples to a few other Californian universities for confirmation and they all obtained the same results proving Covid didn’t exist. The researcher was silenced after this.
My friend has been researching viruses for many years and has old books supporting the fact that ‘viruses’ (plural) don’t exist. I also agree from the research I have done.
Virus
– latin meaning is ‘poisonous fluid’– inside host cell which is excreted from the body
– singular for viral infection
– a virus is a ‘singular dead cell’
– the virus is dead because the host cell has been killed by the exosomes; what is left is the poisonous or toxic fluid which is excreted from the body through the bowel
– cold and flu (Influenza type A) -> viral
– Influenza type B, pleurisy, tuberculosis, pneumonia -> bacterial-
Great breakdown.
-
