It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian Government Wants Right to Detain Sick People

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Australian Government Wants Right to Detain Sick People


www.news.com.au

HEALTH authorities want the power to detain people for up to three months if they refuse testing or treatment for infectious diseases.

Under draft legislation proposed by the State Government, someone with swine flu, measles or meningococcal disease could be forcibly held, examined and treated.

It is one of several wide-ranging powers sought to protect the public.

The Public Health Bill also would, for the first time, give authorities the power to override parents who refused treatment for their children with infectious conditions.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Every day under Kevin Rudd Australia becomes more like China - his masters in Beijing must be very pleased with Chairman Kev. Next he will be able to lock you up and throw away the key because you dont believe his climate change BS .

Is this Adelaide or Nazi Germany? Newspaper stories like this are sickening. What kind of world are we giving our children and grandchildren? Wake up people and put a stop to this.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by kayne1982
 


The government would only forcibly detain people like you ,
who believe they have a right to endanger others with their
infectious disease . People with AIDS who deliberately infect
others are actually criminally negligent .



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   


The tougher enforcement powers would come with a substantial increase in fines - up from $60,000 to $1 million and 10 years' jail - and relate to any serious risk caused to public health. SA Health public health director Kevin Buckett said the new legislation would give authorities wider powers to act more quickly.


Take the vaccine or we'll detain you / bankrupt you then throw you in jail and more than likely still vaccinate you against your will ....

Awesome



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by radarloveguy
reply to post by kayne1982
 


The government would only forcibly detain people like you ,
who believe they have a right to endanger others with their
infectious disease . People with AIDS who deliberately infect
others are actually criminally negligent .


It is impossible to infect anybody with AIDS. HIV is another story. I'm pretty sure that deliberately infect anybody is criminal act under existing laws even in Australia. I'm sorry to say it but your post is not well informed view. Another thing is that you are attacking others ad hominem for their views. It's bit childish.

Back to story: Here in Czech Rep. such law exist long time and I have no report that it was misused. If you have second stadium of tuberculosis you must go to special section of hospital. You can't stay at home because it is really danger disease. The question is which bugs are on the list and if it will be misused by officials. Possibility here for sure is.

EDIT: syntax

[edit on 20-11-2009 by zeddissad]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jpvskyfreak
 


Your missing the point. Check your comprehension mate! They are saying they want the right to treat people who already have an infectious disease. Not forcibly vaccinate someone. There's a major difference!


The Public Health Bill also would, for the first time, give authorities the power to override parents who refused treatment for their children with infectious conditions*.

*Emphasis By me

I think it's a great idea! Infectious people should not be allowed into Australia... period! It's called quarantine! Not exactly an old idea... but it hasn't been enforced as it should of late. We let swine flu into this country because international commerce and tourism was given priority over innocent Australians lives. A reversal of that policy can only be a good thing.

It may even prevent some of those religious wacko's denying medical aid to their children due to their draconian belief systems.


IRM

[edit on 20/11/09 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by jpvskyfreak

I think it's a great idea! Infectious people should not be allowed into Australia... period! It's called quarantine! Not exactly an old idea... but it hasn't been enforced as it should of late. We let swine flu into this country because international commerce and tourism was given priority over innocent Australians lives. A reversal of that policy can only be a good thing.

There is no way to stop flu virus by large scale quarantine. But it is good method how to slow down spreading of disease and thus get time for preparation. Also absolute number of infected will be smaller. I'm not against quarantine but it is not magical cure. Who is strictly against quarantine is WHO because their goal is not to help people but business.

regards
z.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
The problem with laws like this, is that while they seemingly are designed to protect the public from extreme cases of negligent, infectious people, they are almost always used based on "loopholes", "intended purposes", etc. And they tend to be pulled out whenever the government wants.

Laws like this end up giving governments the right to detain people first....check them out later.

Also, this would open up the definition of infectious disease.

As a parent, if your child gets Swine Flu, are you prepared to turn said child over to the government for three months. So that the government can care for your child and have subsequently deemed you not able to?

That's really what this law can allow.

Further, once enacted, simple amendments can be made by the government, often without public knowledge or the public paying attention, to include various illnesses that will be considered worthy of detainment.

In the U.S., various amendments are done with little fanfare, and outside of ATS, nobody ever really notices. Take the recent Hate Crime Bill extension -- it was thrown in with something completely unrelated, and I guarantee you that a large percentage of Americans have no idea it was even addressed.

Lastly, are you prepared to have a family member taken away and "quarantined" by the government for as long as three months? And what then? The example of HIV / AIDS was used. You can live many years with HIV and never even look sick. If a person refuses treatment, and instead ops to live out a natural life, perhaps taking natural, holistic medicines, what then? Are they going to detain said person for years? Or, after three months, release them into the public anyway. What would this law have accomplished then?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Aussie land is a nice country.

To think people ran from europe to there thinking they where getting a good thing.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Dude ...

This is all part of the fear campaign to control the masses into the vaccination program.
The testing of infectious disease & treatment programs can easily be manipulated against the public, yes I agree entirely that countries need quarantine control for infectious diseases.

BUT

If I get swine flu as some of my friends have , I will prefer to ride it out and treat it in the manner that I deem suitable. Under this legislation if I get sick with swine flu and refuse to get tested & treated I am a (health risk) to the public and they could then forcefully administer a treatment to me - and who knows what the (bleep) is in that #.

This argument is a double edged sword - you're dammed if you do and your dammed if you dont.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I am all for someone knowingly endangering others with infectious diseases being contained and treated. Sure there are unintended uses or loopholes but they already exist. They could just call you a terrorist and virtually detain you indefinitely.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I'm sorry but I was under the belief that Australia wasn't a communist state?

It's about time Government get their hands off EVERYTHING.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by kayne1982
 


This is s STATE govt. Plan.
Not a National Plan.
It is Like Saying that The US govt. wants to do something when Texas is implementing a new Law.

Under draft legislation proposed by the State Government, someone with swine flu, measles or meningococcal disease could be forcibly held, examined and treated.

www.news.com.au...

Regardless, it is still very worrying.
But it is not a National policy or National Draft.
Yet.

I still think it is important to point out the it is NOT the Australian Govt. But the South Australian State.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
Aussie land is a nice country.

To think people ran from europe to there thinking they where getting a good thing.

Alot of them fled here to here because the Nazis had been hunting them down and putting them into death camps. That was in Europe wasn't it..?


Ontopic: I do not like the idea of this as it's smacks of power mongering.. but at least it's not a federal plan. I also highly doubt such a bill would get passed as it would cause a huge public backlash.

I do agree if there is serious disease like the black plague that there'd have to be some sort of quarentine.. but imo swine flu and measles isn't serious enough to warrent such drastic measures.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join