Masks

INTRODUCTION
Face masks have been advised by governments, mainly on the basis of protecting others by catching airborne viruses from sneezing or coughing. Secondarily they are believed to provide some protection from inhaling airborne viruses. However, the mesh size is generally too large to directly protect against the Coronavirus, which is around 0.1 microns.

If you want to refuse a mask, the scripts page guides you what to say. For airports, you may be required to produce some sort of medical exemption.

There are some negative consequences from wearing a mask:


 * 1) studies show reduced blood oxygen levels through use of a face mask, causing carbon dioxide poisoning and weakening the bodies immune system.  This may cause slow irreversible brain damage within 2 hours.
 * 2) the re-breathing of viruses, bacteria and diseases trapped in the mask. Masks can then become a source of disease for both the wearer and the people they interact with. Hence new or regularly cleaned masks should always be used. The re-breathing of contaminants is particularly serious because the Olfactory nerve, in the upper part of the nasal cavity, provides a direct connection to the brain.
 * 3) new masks will emanate some chemicals that will be inhaled. Some masks are coated with PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), a highly toxic chemical linked to cancer.
 * 4) Masks have also been found to contribute to Staph infections, skin conditions, pleurisy and bacterial pneumonia in the wearer.

Clinical studies have not proven masks to be effectual in preventing the spread of disease

Opinion of the American Medical Association: "Face masks should be used only by individuals who have symptoms of respiratory infection such as coughing, sneezing, or, in some cases, fever. ...Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill."  Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA); April 21, 2020 Volume 323, Number 15.

Click here for a proforma medical exemption to avoid wearing a mask, to be signed by your GP.

SUMMARY OF LEGALITIES
In South Australia masks are not mandatory (current guidelines can be found here) nor can they be made mandatory through application of the Emergency Management Act 2004.

Section 5(1) states: "Subject to this section, this Act is in addition to and does not limit, or derogate from, the provisions of any other Act."

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992, states it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee who is unable to wear a mask:

5 Direct disability discrimination

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if, because of the disability, the discriminator treats, or proposes to treat, the aggrieved person less favourably than the discriminator would treat a person without the disability in circumstances that are not materially different.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) also discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:

(a) the discriminator does not make, or proposes not to make, reasonable adjustments for the person; and

(b) the failure to make the reasonable adjustments has, or would have, the effect that the aggrieved person is, because of the disability, treated less favourably than a person without the disability would be treated in circumstances that are not materially different.

(3) For the purposes of this section, circumstances are not materially different because of the fact that, because of the disability, the aggrieved person requires adjustments.

6 Indirect disability discrimination

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:

(c) the requirement or condition has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with the disability.

4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the burden of proving that the requirement or condition is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the case, lies on the person who requires, or proposes to require, the person with the disability to comply with the requirement or condition.

11 Unjustifiable hardship

(1) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a hardship that would be imposed on a person (the first person) would be an unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account, including the following:

(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, any person concerned;

(b) the effect of the disability of any person concerned;

(c) the financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made, by the first person;

(d) the availability of financial and other assistance to the first person;

(e) any relevant action plans given to the Commission under section 64.

Example: One of the circumstances covered by paragraph (1)(a) is the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue to, or to be suffered by, the community.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.

12A Application of the Criminal Code

Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code (except Part 2.5) applies to all offences against this Act.

Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.

15 Discrimination in employment

(1) It is unlawful for an employer or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of the other person’s disability:

(a) in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment; or

(b) in determining who should be offered employment; or

(c) in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered.

(2) It is unlawful for an employer or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of an employer to discriminate against an employee on the ground of the employee’s disability:

(a) in the terms or conditions of employment that the employer affords the employee; or

(b) by denying the employee access, or limiting the employee’s access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits associated with employment; or

(c) by dismissing the employee; or

(d) by subjecting the employee to any other detriment.

(3) Neither paragraph (1)(a) nor (b) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person’s disability, in connection with employment to perform domestic duties on the premises on which the first-mentioned person resides.

Also, the Human Rights Act 2004, states

10. Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment etc

(2) No-one may be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her free consent.

Letter to Prime Minister concerning Conflicts of Health Policy With Australian Constitution

“The letter is to illustrate to you, the Commonwealth legislature, and the Australian community, the constitutional protection afforded to each Australian, against any legislature seeking to advance a health policy through civil conscription. Health policies come and go, and legislation that is enacted to advance a particular health policy is always subordinate to the Constitution. Health policies are always subordinate to each Australian’s constitutional guarantee to not have medical procedures forced upon them by government.

Being injected with a vaccine is an assault, made lawful by consent. The decision to be injected with a vaccine occurs within the confidential, consensual and contractual relationship that exists between a health practitioner and their patient. This freedom of consent as to medical procedures is enshrined in our Constitution. A number of areas of law prohibits third party interference in the private contractual doctor/patient relationship, and the prohibition on such interference is expressly stated in s51(xxiiiA) of our Constitution. In Australia people must freely consent to being injected with a vaccine. Freely given consent means freedom from coercive and punitive laws that interfere with the doctor/patient relationship. S51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution expressly prohibits the provision of medical and dental services in circumstances that amount to any form of civil conscription. This includes the coercive and punitive No Jab laws, and the laws that compel private medical information to be conscripted onto the Australian Immunisation Register. S51(xxiiiA) states: 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: … (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances; … S51(xxiiiA) provides an express constitutional protection against forced medication. This protection prohibits State, Territory and Commonwealth legislators from enacting laws to conscript people into undergoing medical procedures. The injecting of a patient by their doctor with a vaccine is a medical service. Any laws that operate to civilly conscript a patient to be injected with a vaccine are expressly prohibited by the Constitution. What is shown in the following is that the current operation of Australia’s suit of No Jab laws, and the Australian Immunisation Register amounts to a form of civil conscription.

Constitutional guarantee against civil conscription into medical services. The High Court has stated that the s51(xxiiiA) prohibition against civil conscription is a constitutional guarantee. This constitutional guarantee operates to protect personal liberty and freedom, and to ensure that people are not conscripted into medical and dental treatments against their will, or absent their consent. In Wong v Commonwealth, 1 a case concerning s51(xxiiiA), Heydon J at 252 clearly states that the prohibition on any form of civil conscription concerns the protection of individual freedom: “the phrase "any form of civil conscription" operates to confer a type of constitutional guarantee. It creates a deliberate constitutional restraint on a head of Commonwealth legislative power. It relates to individual freedom. It should thus be treated as a matter of substance. It should be read purposively. It should not be construed narrowly. The Commonwealth accepted this ... “ Also in Wong, Kirby J at 127 describes each individual’s constitutional protection from medical and dental conscription. ‘the prohibition on "any form of civil conscription" is designed to protect patients from having the supply of "medical and dental services", otherwise than by private contract, forced upon them without their consent’. This statement of law makes clear that any infringement upon a person’s ability to freely consent to a medical procedure is prohibited by our Constitution. French CJ and Gummow J at 60 in Wong described civil conscription as involving practical compulsion and coercion. ‘The legislative history and the genesis of s 51(xxiiiA) supports a construction of the phrase "(but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" which treats "civil conscription" as involving some form of compulsion or coercion, in a legal or practical sense, to carry out work or provide services ...’. The numerous judgements of High Court Justices’ concerning s51(xxiiiA) are clear; s51xxiiiA expressly guarantees an individual’s constitutional right to not be coerced or compelled into receiving medical services.”

STRATEGY/ PROCESS
Therefore when entering a shop or organisation and a representative asks you to wear a mask:


 * You can REFUSE citing medical exemption
 * If they want to know the reason for the exemption, explain that you are not required to share your medical information with them under privacy laws
 * If they insist that you cannot gain entry/ service because you are not wearing a mask cite the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, see below
 * If they claim that the Emergency Management Act overrides the Disability Act that is false, refer to except from Emergency Management Act below
 * If a representative of your employer is the individual demanding you wear a mask this circumstance is also covered under the Disability Discrimination Act
 * If required you could potentially provide a Letter of Conditional Acceptance to the individual requesting they personally indemnify you for any harm caused to you. You will find a template for a letter of conditional acceptance toward the end of this document.
 * Ask for the name, address and phone number and any other identifying detail for the individual harassing you, explain that action may be taken against them under the various legislation explained to them

There are stated medical conditions that allow you to avoid wearing a mask, such as conditions like asthma, a complete list can be found here.

A face covering is also not required in certain circumstances, such as children under the age of 12 years, strenuous exercise or travelling alone. A complete list can be found here.

You are not required to provide evidence of your medical condition under privacy regulations. Please note that many GPs are refusing to provide exemptions to people, so you may not be successful if you request one.

Detailed scripts for things to say can be found here.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The South Australian Emergency Management Act 2004.

Human Rights Act 2004

Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Forms/Letters/Flyers
Mask Exemption Letter:

Moya mask resource:

Navigation:   Home     Prev    Next