Sydney Censors Vaccination Speeches-

Sydney Censors Vaccination Speeches-

November 19th, 2017

Sydney mayor, Clover Moore believes she has the right to censor events that provide information about vaccinations. On Monday Moore, prompted by social media backlash, ordered an advertisement pulled from the City of Sydney’s website's “what's on” section. The section lists all events held in Sydney, pulling only events deemed inappropriate due to violence, or adult themes. Yet acting under her own discretion Clover ordered the speech by Dr Judy Wilyman's PhD be pulled from the cities page. In her own unqualified opinion she gave this reasoning:

“In this case, my view is that a controversial event promoting messages about vaccinations that have been refuted by science should not be an event that is listed on our city’s website.”

So apparently Clover believes she is a scientist as well as a politician now and is entitled to provide, or censor an actual doctor's professional opinions. This seems like dangerous territory, should the mayor truly be permuted to make calls to censor information she disagrees with? Shouldn't the people of Sydney be permitted to make their own conclusions about what they believe, or should they simply start visiting the mayor for her medical opinions?

Sydney's city counsel found that promoting this event was “harmful and irresponsible”, isn't it much more “harmful and irresponsible” to allow politics and public opinion to censor professionally delivered medical information?

This kind of censoring of speech has been on the rise worldwide. In Canada and the US there are frequently speeches that are canceled simply because of opposition to the ideologies. It is terrible to think that a few peoples opinion's can be weighed as so important that it keeps information from millions. The censoring of information has become an epidemic, and it must be culled in. People have a right to learn, speak, and believe in what they want, so long as they allow others the same right.

Clover has deprived the rights of her constituents to arrive to their own conclusions simply because of a few complaints on Twitter. If this kind of censoring continues, where will our future lead?

Religion- a definition and personal interpretation

What does Religion mean in the context of Freedom of Religion?

Definition and Interpretation of Religion

Various interpretations of religion exist, "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." or "a particular system of faith and worship.", but to me these definitions only partially cover the meaning of religion. Religion in it's truest sense is the devotion to moral rights and the study and obedience to the highest laws, being the laws of nature and of nature's God. This was written to define religion especially as it applies to the rights of the People, although inspired by the Vaccination Pandemic of January 2015, this interpretation serves to define religion in a broader sense.

Under what principles is religion to be defined?

Religion is a very individualistic idea that varies from one person to the next, but without a moral code backing such beliefs they could hardly be considered religious. Religious beliefs must therefore be backed by morals and doing what is right. Without a moral principle what purpose could religion serve? None that I can bare witness to. The second principle under which religion must be defined is an obedience to a higher authority, whether this be god, the creator, nature itself or just natural laws, in order for a belief to be religious it must be obedient to the highest laws. Third, religious beliefs must also be constant, one can't believe in a religion at his or her convenience, one must live by their conviction daily. Of course individual beliefs change and evolve over time and as such ones interpretation of religion is certainly subject to change. The three most important principles; are a moral principle, obedience to the highest law, and consistency. Without all three aspects it can be difficult to have a religion and in this process many of our natural born rights are sacrificed.

Freedom of Religion

I have been inspired to research and define my religion in the recent discovery that there have been several court cases that have stated that vaccination is not subject to vaccination and is purely to the decided at the whim of the state. But the State is a creature of the People and the people are the creator of the state. Thus the state knows not the laws of the most high and can not determine what is or is not a religious principle. Vaccinations are certainly subject to the religious beliefs of the individual people and not to be left to the interpretation of a state, government or even another person. What my religion means to me may not be what it means to you, and that is ok, we can both have our own moral standards. It is not ok however when ones religion, lack of religion or interpretation of religion subjects another to loss their rights secured by law. Some claim that not being vaccinated endangers the population as a whole, but this is not a legitimate concern. Although statutes exist, no law can ultimately govern the religious beliefs of one who does not get vaccinated, any more so than the state can say that three or more people may not gather on a sidewalk in a way that is annoying to others, as was decided by the supreme court in Coates v. City of Cincinnati. I know why it is not in my religion to get vaccinated and I need not explain why to anyone, my religion is my own private experience, and is to be shared at my discretion alone. To insinuate that a belief of religion can not exempt one from vaccination is to take away from the rights of another person, and this is one of the most high offenses one can commit.

All in all, a religion is a private experience, that may be shared, and is protected by an obedience to the highest laws and authority, back with a strong moral code that does not interfere with the rights of another, and is a constant part of ones everyday practices, although it may change over time. The government national or state can not serve to define or interpret religion any more than one person can interpret anthers religion.  An attempt to define or limit or impose your religion or lack of on another human is breaking the law of the most highs, and is subject to severe punishment, at the discretion of the violated.  You may chose to share your religious views or personal views with others, but you may not force someone to adopt the views you hold for any reason, although you may punish them if they have violated your rights in a court of law.

NY State Immunization Requirements and Exemptions

NY State Vaccination Exemption Law

A Review of the recent appellate court case regarding the mandatory immunization law of New York.

This video was made in response to a recent appellate court decision made on January 7th 2015, affirming that the mandatory vaccination law of New York State is constitutional. Although the law, which requires vaccines in children attending public schools, is "constitutional" New York goes above and beyond what is constitutional by allowing exemption of vaccinations based on religious grounds. In this video the case is reviewed and immunization exemption is clearly defined. Vaccination Exemption by religious rights is a basic human right that needs to be observed.