My current employer has mandated the Convid jab across Australia. I have until the end of the year to comply, otherwise I won’t be allowed on the premises until I do and thus won’t get paid. Below is my response with the company’s name removed (I will release that info only if I can’t work for them anymore). Feel free to use my response as a template for your own if you are in a similar position. There are many templates out there from others who are fighting their employers. I have used their ideas as well as my own. I encourage you to look at a few templates that are going around and do the same.

I acknowledge receipt of the E mail informing me of the change in policy in regards to management of risks of spreading infectious diseases within the company and its customers, with specific mention of CoVid 19 and other Coronaviruses (“variants”). To which end the company has assumed it has the legal right to mandate that their employees undergo an invasive medical procedure including the injection of experimental mRNA based or DNA delivery based “vaccines” as a condition of employment (being allowed on site).

Before making a decision on whether or not to agree to such a demand, I ask you to provide me with the following:

1. Evidence that (company) has the legal authority to demand a person in their employ must undertake a specific medical procedure to remain in their employ or be permitted on their premises.

2. Evidence that (company) is in compliance with all Australian laws and international treaties that Australia has signed up to, that guarantee an individual’s human rights to informed consent absent of all forms of coercion in regards to medical procedures (in particular one’s that are still classed in the experimental phase of trials). Specifically, please provide evidence that (company) is not in breach of:

A. The Australian Commonwealth Constitution which prohibits civil conscription in medical and dental services (s.51(23A)).

B. The Biosecurity Act 2015 which prohibits vaccination or treatment without meeting the stringent requirements of an individual Human Biosecurity control order (s.92) and prohibits the use of force or coercion for vaccination (s.95).

C. The UNESCO Statement on Bioethics and Human Rights, which states “Any preventative diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason, without disadvantage and without prejudice” (Art.6).

D. The Criminal Code Act 1995(Cth), which relates to interfering with political liberty states “Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person of any political right or duty shall be guilty of an offence” (s.83.4).

E. The official Australian Immunisation Handbook, which states that for consent to be legally valid, “It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.” (s.2.1.3).

F. The Nuremberg Code, which states “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (Art.1).

3. Evidence that (company) is not breaching my existing contract by introducing this new policy.

4. A copy of the risk assessment study undertaken in the workplace to show that an unvaccinated person is a) more of a risk to other employees and customers than a vaccinated person b) that CoVid 19 is of a significantly higher risk to it’s staff and customers than other infectious diseases (such as seasonal flu, bacterial pneumonia, etc) for which no vaccine mandates apply c) other options for managing infectious illness have been considered and assessed as an alternative.

5. Evidence that (company) has the legal right to prescribe medical procedures for each and every one of their employees and by doing so act as their doctor.

6. Evidence that (company) has the legal right to demand that employees must disclose private medical information (their vaccination status) as a condition of continuing their employment and is not breaching the Privacy Act of 1988 by doing so.

7. Evidence that (company) is not violating Religious Discrimination laws by their mandate for employees who do not wish to take the any CoVid “vaccines” on religious grounds. Especially in regards to the use of HEK 293 cloned cells from a human foetus of 14 weeks in age in 1973 (that was delivered by c-section before being murdered via vivisection to collect its kidney cells whilst its heart was still beating in order for the cells to be viable for cloning) that were used to develop and test the “vaccines” which you are demanding employees take as a condition of keeping their jobs.

8. Provide the vaccine MSDS.

9. Provide substantial independent scientific evidence that all the CoVid “vaccines” are safe, effective and necessary.

10. Inform whether or not (company) will be mandating further medical treatments for other infectious illnesses in the future.

11. Provide legally binding assurances that (company) will take full legal responsibility for any illness, injury, disability or death suspected of being the result of taking the CoVid “vaccines” and provide the evidence that it is insured for such a possibility and the amount it has insured each employee for.

12. Provide legally binding assurances that it will compensate any employee who, after taking the vaccine on the direction of (company) for the sole purpose of keeping their job, still contracts CoVid anyway and/or becomes sick or dies from CoVid. Please provide evidence that (company) has insurance to cover this possibility and the amount each employee is insured for.

Once (company) has addressed these points, I will be able to make an informed decision as to whether I will comply with your policy, or whether I should pursue legal action against you instead. Please be advised that I strongly suspect that …….. is currently engaged in human rights violations on an order of severity that individuals within the company could face criminal prosecution in the future. Should any employee die as a result of this mandate, then homicide would be the minimum charge I would expect to be pursued. Should many employees suffer severe adverse reactions and death, then crimes against humanity charges would be in order. It should also be mentioned that the defence of “ just following orders” would be invalid here. Whether individuals were following directives from superiors in …….. or obeying directives from Politicians masquerading as laws.

Should (company) be unable to properly address the above points, then I ask and strongly advise the Company to abolish this policy.

Thank you for your consideration. Please provide a response within 14 days, or my points will be considered as valid and legally binding as reason to be considered exempt from this policy.

By Stephen Wells     www.xyz.net.au