Website: https://nonaggression.au/
Telegram channel: theANAC
No one should commit aggression against another. Aggression is the initiation of force, threat of force, interference or fraud against a person, persons or their property.
Governments powers are not limitless, even if their politicians are elected through a “democratic process” and even if there are no constitutional limits on their power.
Individuals, groups and even politicians should not use government to impose their bias and agendas on government policies and people, whether they be social (engineering), militaristic or another realm.
That is, government should NOT commit aggression against others, either domestically or internationally.
The purpose of Australian government taxes and its “Treasury” are to benefit Australia.
The purpose of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), according to its website, is “To defend Australia and its national interests in order to advance Australia’s security and prosperity”.
Australia’s federal parliament has committed aggression against the Australian people by extracting approximately one billion Australian dollars from them for a purpose which is not in keeping with the function of the Australian federal government nor the ADF.
Australia’s federal parliament has committed aggression in a foreign war by sending Australian government funds, ADF personnel and ADF equipment to fight in a foreign war in which Australia has no interest. This advances neither Australia’s security nor its prosperity.
Australia, as a country, has no inherent interest in this war, and therefore should remain neutral in the Ukraine conflict.
Australian federal politicians are free to don camouflage and fight on the side they think is “right” in Ukraine if they wish, or to contribute their personal funds to whomever they wish. Likewise, any Australian should be free to do what they like with their bodies and their personal resources.
There is a premise which needs to be addressed before discussing Response to Covid.
The premise is, Who serves whom?
– In a supposedly democratic society, is the government meant to serve the people, or are the people the servants of the elected and not-elected government officials?
– Does a majority of the people rule all others, or are individuals free to make their own decisions providing they are not committing aggression?
It is the premise of the ANAC, that:
– government exists to serve the people, not rule them, and
– neither the government nor a majority have the moral authority to “rule” a minority, nor individuals.
A fundamental problem is: Most politicians, many unelected government officials and those who wish to impose their will/opinion/morals on others, consider there are no limits to government power. Their excuse usually includes the argument that “winning an election” implies a mandate for the new government to do whatever suits their fancy. ANAC rejects that assertion.
In Australia, there is no constitutional nor legal limits to the power its governments can demand and accrue by edict. And, there are no constitutional or legal processes to recall or remove governments or individuals from power when their behaviour becomes destructive, onerous or their garnered power becomes excessive.
As a result, the Australian federal and state/territory governments’ behaviours and edicts in response to Covid were excessive and aggressive. They were aggression.
Some of these aggressions are discussed below.
Before we consider the aggressions, let’s keep in mind several quotes:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken
“The welfare of the people is always the alibi of tyrants.” – Albert Camus
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt, before The House of Commons, 1783
Many politicians consider that because they have “won” an election implies they are omniscient and omnipotent, and they therefore have the wisdom and mandate to decide what the citizenry are permitted to hear and think. A natural consequence of this is their motivation to undertake social engineering, including “manufacturing consent” for whatever their chosen agenda is. It might be to “normalise” a war, pursue forever wars for a supposedly “just cause” or even just implement a specific agenda they vainly think everyone should abide by “for their own safety”, “for the benefit of society” or “for the common good”.
This attitude is based upon the precept (though totally unspoken) that the politicians are the rulers of the people they pretend to represent. They pretend to “serve” the people, but really serve the interests special interests, including the thirst for power.
This behaviour has been and still is manifested by the Australian federal government and every state/territory government in respect to Covid.
Many of the statements made by Australian governments were unproven opinion, not based upon fact . . . many of which have been proven to be false. This was fraud, and is therefore aggression.
But, of course, Australian governments will never prosecute themselves for fraud.
The federal government committed aggression by using its regulatory power to prevent doctors from fulfilling their obligations to their patients, and by mandating that treatments which had been proven to prevent or minimise the onset, symptoms and effects of Covid can not be used in Australia. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards are complicit. It continues to commit aggression by still forbidding alternatives to its mandated “Covid vaccines”.
Then, when Covid (so-called) vaccines were released, the Australian federal government was swift to approve the experimental technology, which had only “Emergency Authorization” in the US and all state and territory governments were swift to push the “vaccine” on its citizens, despite NO evidence of its efficacy and no knowledge of its risk; but plenty of warnings from medical professionals across the world of the potential risks of this new technology. Such behaviour, of pushing unproven and useless remedies, is quackery.
The federal government
Preventing such movement is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which Australia is a signatory to.
UDHR Article 13 (in full)
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
ICCPR Article 12 (in full)
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
It is a very weak argument to suggest that limiting movement of a citizen who is not proven to be sick is “necessary to protect . . . public health”. Arbitrarily requiring an injection to be able to depart or enter the country compounds the violation.
Australian citizens returning to the country who were not proven to be sick were arbitrarily detained under the guise of quarantine as a matter of government policy. This too is a violation of the UDHR and ICCPR.
UDHR Article 9 (in full)
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
ICCPR Article 8 (in part)
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.
These are behaviour we would expect of a totalitarian state, not a supposedly democratic society. Each of these federal government policies was aggression.
State and territory governments also committed aggression by preventing and inhibiting free movement within the country of people who were not proven to be sick, and by mandating arbitrary detention under the guise of quarantine.
These, too, were a violation of the UDHR and ICCPR; relevant clauses quoted above.
Australian governments enforced mask-wearing in many public and private situations, despite previous evidence such masks have little or no positive effect, and despite them being contrary to pre-covid disease handling plans and policies.
This has excluded people from public transport and public services, especially the most vulnerable in society and the less well-off.
The government committed aggression by making these regulations.
Australian governments had no moral right to impinge on the private property of business owners, whether they be small businesses or large corporations, by demanding shutdowns or inhibiting trading.
Australian governments destroyed many peoples’ businesses, careers and savings as a result of their actions, fundamentally equivalent to theft without compensation.
It is interesting to observe that Australian governments heartlessly destroyed entire portions of civil society, but no politician ever suggested a pay cut to themselves to atone their aggression on the country.
There were many, many incidences of government security forces assaulting, kidnapping (arresting) and extorting (fining) citizens for undertaking activities which were not aggression on others. The governments were the aggressors in all these instances. The excuse that the actions were taken to enforce “Health Orders” does not justify the aggression. There was not, and still is not, any evidence that any of these measures reduced the effects of Covid.
Freedom of assembly, and its accompanying precept, freedom of speech, are vital mechanisms of a free society. Whether the purpose of the assembly is to demonstrate against onerous covid-related government policies, to pray, to celebrate or to party, the government had no moral authority to hinder citizens’ rights of assembly.
Join the coalition: ANAC registration
Page version 3 Apr 23