Why?

This is a question that needs to be asked a lot in the coming months and years as politicians and their advisers can no longer hide behind public panic and confront public anger.

Why?

The Americans take their constitution a bit more seriously than do Australians. So Australian Christians were happy to be told that they could not go to church or worship in a clear and blatant violation of s 116 of the Constitution.  Americans are made of sterner stuff:

When Maryville Baptist Church in Louisville held an Easter service, some worshipers went inside. But a loudspeaker in the parking lot allowed sequestered faithful to stay in their cars. State police placed notices on vehicles, including occupied ones, explaining that congregants were breaking the law. The police took down license-plate numbers. The church sued.

Excellent. What did the court say?

“Why is it safe to wait in a car for a liquor store to open but dangerous to wait in a car to hear morning prayers?”

and

“The Governor has offered no good reason so far for refusing to trust the congregants who promise to use care in worship in just the same way it trusts accountants, lawyers, and laundromat workers to do the same. Are they not often the same people, going to work on one day and attending worship on another?”

and

“Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew?” the court wrote in Roberts v. Neace. “While the law may take periodic naps during a pandemic, we will not let it sleep through one.”

Awesome.

While the law may take periodic naps during a pandemic, we will not let it sleep through one.

A much healthier approach to the views taken here: Pass a law and then rule.

This entry was posted in COVID-19, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Why?

  1. Just Interested

    Section 116 reads:

    he Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    It is a narrow provision, aimed at Commonwealth law making.

    The rules restraining religious attendance are jurisdictionally based.

    Unless it is being argued that section 116 creates some form of implied constitutional right enforceable against state governments (as the recently discovered implied constitutional right of political communication does), there is no ‘blatant breach’ of s.116.

    That the restrictions suck as a matter of merit and should be called out is of course another matter…..

  2. stackja

    Meanwhile China lied and people died. And WHO is to blame.

  3. a happy little debunker

    The question we should be asking is

    Why did our political class continue to abrogate their responsibilities to delivering prosperity to their country in favour of long failed and outdated models promulgated upon a compliant MSM and suitable cowed electorate?

    More people will die from their reaction to Covid19 than will die from Covid19 – yet their stance has barely moved a blip.

  4. Roger

    Unless it is being argued that section 116 creates some form of implied constitutional right enforceable against state governments…

    I suspect it would be found to do so if it were taken to the HC.

    Alas, the churches have been very supine in this matter thus far.

  5. rickw

    The Americans take their constitution a bit more seriously than do Australians.

    The USA’s Constitution is taken seriously because it’s primary objective is protecting The People against Government. It does this well.

    The Australian Constitution does this partially, almost as an afterthought.

    Underlying the situation is The American People’s right and ability to project force. This means that Constitutional adherence is taken reasonably seriously by all parties.

  6. DD

    The Australian constitution provides that where there is conflict between federal and state law the federal law prevails.

    The Australian constitution is the primary law of Australia.

    WHY can state law over ride its provisions?

    Land clearance laws overriding property rights without compensation?

    Religious observance controlled in clear breach of federal law.

    WHY, when the state parliaments agreed to the constitution at Federation?

    WHY?

    I see a contradiction here. Can someone explain in simple terms why the law does not?

    “Because, that’s why” is not sufficient.

  7. Roger

    I see a contradiction here. Can someone explain in simple terms why the law does not?

    There may indeed be contradictions between Commonwealth & state laws, but for those contradictions to be resolved someone usually has to take a challenge to whichever law offends to the High Court, which then rules on the constitutionality of the law in question. One hopes that, when this has settled, the laws which have served as a basis for the rules we’ve seen enacted will be subject to such scrutiny. At the moment the High Court is not sitting, but only delivering judgements on matters that were before it before the lockdown was applied.

  8. Suburban Boy

    Section 116 limits the powers of the Commonwealth but not the States. It does not restrict the powers of the States to prohibit “the free exercise of any religion”.

    Hence the State of Victoria was able to (and did, by Act of Parliament) prohibit the free exercise of Scientology from 1966 for about 20 years.

  9. Kneel

    “At the moment the High Court is not sitting,…”

    Why not?

    Supermarkets are still employing young “check-out chicks” who are paid considerably less than judges, and who are doing their job, as paid, in what is highly likely to be a greater risk environment than when they signed up and definately more “exposed” than any judge.

    Clearly, the courts don’t see themselves as “essential”, or they would be working, regardless.
    Ditto politicians.

    Get back to work the lot of you – lazy bastards, you get paid a lot more than any check-out chick, and have much less physical interaction with “the public”, so are at much less risk of catching SARS-CoV-2.

    GET BACK TO WORK YOU LAZY BASTARDS! EARN YOUR PAY!

  10. Leo G

    Why are Australian governments still following the discredited epidemiological prescriptions of Professor Ferguson?

  11. nfw

    Is it just me or has Great Scott Leader (a statue coming to a closed park near you soon) gone quiet? He had a lot to say when the Neil Where are my Pants Fergusson GIGO machines told Great Scott Leader that 45 million Australians could die from the Wuhan Virus Flu, but seems to have disappeared from view now that real stats are coming out.

  12. John A

    DD, the reason why arises partly from the difference between the US and Australian Constitutions: each begins from different assumptions.

    The US Constitution is, as was stated above, a compact between the People and their Government, and aimed to restrain their Government. Only secondarily was it an agreement of thirteen colonies to form a federal system, ceding delineated, specific powers to the Federal Congress and the President. Thus, like ours, it reserves unspecified powers to the States. That is why in this manufactured crisis, their President is just as much a figurehead, and equally hamstrung, as our PM.

    But the Australian Constitution is primarily an agreement between the States and the Commonwealth on the division of powers. States reserve unspecified powers to their own Constitutions, and the reason that the PDR of Viktoriastan is in such a state is that the Diktatorship can modify the Constitution by its own Act of Parliament. Religious freedom wasn’t an issue during our Constitutional Conventions in the 1890s at all, whereas the basis of the independence of the USA was the Pilgrim emigration from the UK, seeking religious freedom from the Divine Right of Kings – especially mad ones. That makes religious matters such as worship and religious education (aka home education by Christians) a constant political issue to be fought over.

    Our s116 was a modified version (much weaker) of the anti-establishment theme which was expressed in the US First Amendment. It deals mainly with sectarian issues of Protestants vs Catholics within a context of primarily Christian beliefs and worldview, and with the separation of church and state, which concept is now understood in the reverse of the colonial era.

    At that time (and still applicable in the UK and Europe) the Church of England was a department of government and the royal oath includes defending the Protestant faith (and the Church of England) as part of the duties of the sovereign, just as much as defending the territory of the realm. A citizen of England is ipso facto a member of the Church of England and a Scottish citizen is ipso facto a member of the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland. That is why bishopric appointments are government matters to recommend to the sovereign (see Yes, Prime Minister for an example). But New World nations rejected that completely, opting for a wider freedom of religion than applies in the Old World.

    These days, that idea has been turned on its head so that “separation of church and state” means keeping (Christian) religion out of government, rather than keeping government out of the church. Thus the “regressives” use this false idea to keep Christian morals out of politics and legislation at all levels, thereby changing the moral basis for society towards hedonism (witness the declines of the last fifty years or so).

    And that’s how we have reached the position we are now in, enabling churches to be shut down by government fiat. It’s a de facto return to the Divine Right of Kings.

  13. Bruce of Newcastle

    So Australian Christians were happy to be told that they could not go to church or worship in a clear and blatant violation of s 116 of the Constitution.

    No. There’s a difference between honouring the authorities and being happy about it. We are not happy. We will be even less happy if schools open but churches don’t.

  14. MACK

    There’s a Senate committee investigating The Virus. Put in a submission – apparently many people have.

  15. Pyrmonter

    @ Doomlord

    All s 116 does is, essentially, prevent establishment, interference in worship or the imposition of religious tests (and perhaps tests of irreligiosity). It reflects the constitutional settlement of the Empire in 1900 outside England, Wales and Scotland: neither establishment nor tests of the sort that angered the Fenians (CL can set out the longer version: in short, the Church of Ireland was the subject of expropriations of the sort he seems to imagine the Roman church will undergo at some time in the future); it was largely brought about here from the mid 19C by the efforts of the Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians … and colonial governments keen not to have the religious competing on their patch for state provision of education.

  16. Zatara

    Section III

    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    1st Amendment, US Constitution

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Interesting comparison as in the US those restrictions most certainly do apply to the state legislatures as well as the federal congress.

  17. Zatara

    Note that the right to peacefully assemble granted in the US Constitution might actually have had more bearing on the Judge’s decision than the purely religious aspects of the case.

  18. Iampeter

    So Australian Christians were happy to be told that they could not go to church or worship in a clear and blatant violation of s 116 of the Constitution.

    It would only be a violation of s 116 if ONLY Christians were told they can’t go about their affairs.
    The other way it would be violated is if ONLY Christians had exemptions from these lock-downs.
    That would mean everyone else’s religious freedom was being violated.
    We have way more fundamental violations happening here than merely s 116.

    While the law may take periodic naps during a pandemic, we will not let it sleep through one.

    But they absolutely have let it sleep. Sadly.
    It’s also not clear if he is bringing restrictions on churches into line with those of other businesses or if he is now granting special exemptions for churches.
    If it’s the latter then he is using the common misunderstanding of what’s meant by “religious freedom” to actually violate the law, just like those advocating lock-downs in the first place.

  19. Rob MW

    A much healthier approach to the views taken here: Pass a law and then rule.

    Nice thought Sinc, but, Jurisprudence in this bloody country always sides with their paymasters. The HCA Pell decision notwithstanding was an exception and not the rule. The Tasmanian Dam case is the high watermark for Judges to allow politicians to not only have their cake but to eat it as well, regardless of the propriety consequences.

  20. Rob MW

    All s 116 does is, essentially, prevent establishment, interference in worship or the imposition of religious tests (and perhaps tests of irreligiosity).

    Goes further than that. It goes to conscientious objectors (see: Vietnam objectors – belief) and also goes to political affiliation/belief (see: Communist Party case). In other words if someone has a provable conscientious belief then s116 may well apply.

  21. Perplexed of Brisbane

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #3450985, posted on May 12, 2020 at 12:49 pm
    So Australian Christians were happy to be told that they could not go to church or worship in a clear and blatant violation of s 116 of the Constitution.

    No. There’s a difference between honouring the authorities and being happy about it. We are not happy. We will be even less happy if schools open but churches don’t.

    I agree Bruce.

    The churches seemed glad to shut down and appear to be in no rush to re-open. The leaders can hide behind their podcasts and online gatherings. I take no part in them. I’m not into church as a spectator sport.

    If some of the heads had at least spoken out in protest…….but they were as caught up in the hysteria as much as anyone else.

    I’m sure that when they finally do re-open, the reminders to continue tithing will be thick on the ground.

    I think I will look more towards my brothers and sisters overseas who suffer daily persecution (e.g. China) for a Christ like example than any church leader here. In my opinion, all the churches have done by their silence is prove their irrelevance and that Christians don’t need them to have and build a close relationship to God.

    It has been too easy to be a Christian in the West and now we are realising that it is going to get harder but I think we failed the first test. Let’s see how well we go in the future.

    In fairness, I should stress that it was understandable to get caught up in the beginning but it became quite clear in a short period of time that this was not the cataclysm predicted. At least then, there should have been a loud chorus of voices from the church challenging the “new normal.”

  22. Rebel with cause

    Americans take a lot of things more seriously than we do. It’s not always a good thing.

  23. cuckoo

    Have gun shops re-opened in Victoria yet? And I’d love to see a graph of the number of people daily downloading the COVID tracking app. I suspect we’re really flattening that curve.

  24. P

    This thread came to mind when I read the following article in “First Things”:

    Where Two or Three Are Gathered
    by James A. Hamel
    5 . 11 . 20

  25. DD

    Thank you all for your responses to my questions. I will phrase things differently and ask where I am misunderstanding things as a layman in all things legal.

    The primary federal law in Australia is the federal constitution.
    All federal laws must be subservient to that constitution.
    It states that federal must win federal/state conflicting laws.
    How then can any state law remain in conflict with the constitution itself?
    Where the constitution is silent, say education, there can not be conflict. State powers prevail.
    Where the constitution is not silent, religion, conflict is not allowed.
    Or, is the constitution irrelevant to the states?
    How can they agree to federation under the constitution without adopting and following ALL of its provisions.

  26. Suburban Boy

    DD, the error is assuming that there is a conflict between a State law and the Constitution that is relevant to the current discussion. There is no such conflict.

    Section 116 limits the power of the Commonwealth Parliament but it does not impose such a limit on the States. A State law that has the effect of prohibiting religious practice is not in conflict with the Constitution because the Constitution does not stop the States from enacting such a law.

  27. Pyrmonter

    @ DD and @ Zatara

    1 – s 109 of the Australian Constitution makes federal legislation (and delegated legislation) paramount over state law. But it doesn’t impose on the states the restrictions imposed on the federal legislature: the federal legislature has limited powers (mostly in s 51) whereas the states have general power, with a few exclusively reserved to the federal government (raising and army; coining). However s 116 applies to the federal legislative power – at least in principle, not to state legislative power.

    2 – The US Bill of Rights only came to apply to the states decades after the adoption of those rights: when the amendments to the US Constitution were passed to entrench those rights, at least two states – Massachusetts and Connecticut – had state churches; it was a fetter on federal, not state power. Only in the second half of the 19th century was the basis for incorporation, the 14th amendment, was adopted; it took some time to play out – ‘incorporation’ was controversial at least into the mid 20C.

  28. The states may not pass an unconstitutional law for the Commonwealth as a quid pro quo and they are bound by international conventions which are Federal law.

    Section 116 may not come into it at all; but the State law may be invalid after all.

  29. Ellen of Tasmania

    Loved this interview. Pastor Gary Gordon. I think he’s a Baptist? – but you’ll forgive him when you hear him roar.

  30. The Americans take their constitution a bit more seriously than do Australians.

    The U.S. take their constitution seriously because their country was born through it. It is mentioned almost daily in the news, taught in schools and has a place of reverence inside a sealed preserved glass case in the nation’s capital that kids visit on school trips (socialists just embalm mass murderers in mausoleums). Even though the Obumbaclot tried to feed it through the shredder, Trump is putting it back together and people still force its adherence via the courts where they have Thomas’ and Kavanaughs’ and Gorsuchs’ to interpret.

    Australians today can’t spell constitution let alone comprehend that one even exists. Kids are taught more about bum sex and trannies than the legitimate role of Government. And anyone wanting to uphold the constitution will have it ignored and misinterpreted by the activist clowns appointed by the Stupid Fucking Liberals.

  31. Robbo

    Sinc if you want answers to those questions from someone in authority in Australia then contact Daniel Andrews. He knows all there is to know about controlling crowds and shutting down employment. The only thing he isn’t all that good at is controlling the Corona virus in meat works owned by Labor Party members and financial contributors to the Party.

  32. Pyrmonter

    In answer to the Doomlord’s question …

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/belgium/

    Not a country that avoided ‘lockdown’ (in fact, from what I can make of it (I have neither French nor Dutch) a stricter ‘lockdown’ than has been undergone in most of Australia), but where the rate of death/population is over 180 times as large as we have.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/belgium/

    Here, that would be about 19,000 dead already, with little sign of abatement, whereas here deaths are currently 97 and it seems unlikely they will reach 150.

    And a reminder – while the churches are closed, most of them closed before legislation required it.

  33. dover_beach

    Why indeed? There can be now continuing rationale for the existing situation that makes attending Mass or the like illegal. It is outrageous but instructive that this isn’t an important issue to the elites.

  34. Beachcomber

    Ellen of Tasmania at 3:21 pm

    Loved this interview. Pastor Gary Gordon. I think he’s a Baptist? – but you’ll forgive him when you hear him roar.

    Pastor Gary Gordon. He’s the man! More power to him and his contempt for the “tentacles of a disruptive, bankrupting, sodomising, disgusting institution”, which is the government, is quite inspiring. Wish I could attend his church here in Australia.

  35. Pyrmonter

    @ Dover

    Indeed. And, even within the churches: https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/have-the-churches-been-betrayed-by-their-bishops-

    But it is a bit ripe for those among us who are believers to complain when our own leaders have shut things down. What can we expect: that the National Cabinet to instruct ++ Glenn or ++ Anthony to re-open the cathedrals?

  36. P

    Ellen of Tasmania
    #3451167, posted on May 12, 2020 at 3:21 pm
    Loved this interview. Pastor Gary Gordon

    Vid starts at 1:18

    Pastor Cary Gordon

  37. Bruce

    See also: William Shakespeare:

    ” ”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” as stated by Dick the Butcher in ”Henry VI,” Part II, act IV.

    Then, there’s Luke 22:36

    “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. ” (or words to that effect).

    “Life” imitating “Art” is not always pretty.

    Or words to that effect.

  38. Roger

    “At the moment the High Court is not sitting,…”

    Why not?

    Why, covid-19 of course.

  39. Roger

    Section 116 limits the power of the Commonwealth Parliament but it does not impose such a limit on the States.

    That has to be tested.

  40. Pyrmonter

    @ Bruce

    Luke 11:45

    And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

  41. cuckoo

    Speaking of constitutions I’ve seen reports, which attracted almost zero comment, that Daniel Andrews has effectively enshrined a perpetual ban on fracking, in the Victorian constitution. WTF?

  42. one old bruce

    Any Anglicans here? Do you like being called Protestants? Anglicans I’ve met prefer to call themselves ‘Catholics’ and that’s why they designate others as ‘Roman Catholics’.

    Of course Anglicans have their Evangelical faction, and how that affects them I have no idea.

    Australia has been dominated by Anglicans and Catholics. The wild card has always been religious nonconformists, who I think were far more influential in the way the USA developed, but are amorphous and hard to pin down:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism)

  43. Chris M

    Some good discussion and comments. I didn’t see free worship mentioned on any of the government stages, it seems open ended and could be many months? So clearly ‘flattening the curve’ is no longer the strategy is it. Apparently it must be eliminated for some weeks, everyone needs a creepy app then they MAY allow us. Scott Morrrison seems keen to ‘feed the beast’ as it were with this useless and sketchy app, dunno about that character.

    In my opinion, all the churches have done by their silence is prove their irrelevance and that Christians don’t need them to have and build a close relationship to God.

    True! But ‘Church’ is the people, the building is just a church building that’s all. In the early church days there were no official buildings, much less fancy ones. People just met in houses.

  44. one old bruce

    From Wikipedia article in my previous comment:
    ‘Historians distinguish two categories of Dissenters, or Nonconformists, in addition to the evangelicals or “Low Church” element in the Church of England. “Old Dissenters”, dating from the 16th and 17th centuries, included Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Unitarians, and Presbyterians outside Scotland. “New Dissenters” emerged in the 18th century and were mainly Methodists. The “Nonconformist Conscience” was their moral sensibility which they tried to implement in British politics.[9] The “Nonconformist conscience” of the Old group emphasized religious freedom and equality, pursuit of justice, and opposition to discrimination, compulsion, and coercion. The New Dissenters (and also the Anglican evangelicals) stressed personal morality issues, including sexuality, temperance, family values, and Sabbath-keeping.’

    So old Dissenters favour liberty and the new ones favours state control/enforced morals. Couldn’t be more clear. USA founded by old, Australia by new.

  45. Pyrmonter

    @ One Old Bruce

    1 – Anglicans are reformed and catholic.

    2 – In practice, the US was deeply shaped by the mainline protestant churches – very often ‘Methodist’ (though not necessarily aligned to British/Australian Methodists) – that emerged in the Great Awakening(s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening. Those churches are dying before our eyes – splintering into fundamentalist and social progressive wings, and losing the mainstream population from which they grew.

  46. Pyrmotner

    @ Cuckoo

    Which is why entrenchment provisions should be avoided. In the US, they’ve been used to make state public sector pensions inviolable … and the states thus unreformable.

  47. one old bruce

    Thanks Pyrmonter.

    Would you agree that earlier Protestants were more concerned with liberty,

    and post-Wesley ‘Awakening’ Protestants (mostly Methodists) united around issues like liquor laws and a more egalitarian view of women (e.g. women like Phoebe Palmer as leaders in their own right) ?

    (- which made the latter more in favour of state control and legal ‘reform’, in contrast to earlier British Protestants who wanted to be free of ‘the state’).

  48. Pyrmotner

    @ Bruce

    The earlier protestants were concerned with liberty, but not entirely as we understand it: they wanted to be free to impose their own views, not follow those of the established church. They in turn discovered there were dissenters from their views – that dissent went on to shape the north eastern US.

  49. Squirrel

    To have a Bill of Rights or not to have a Bill of Rights, that is the question:
    Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer
    The slings and arrows of outrageous bureaucracy,
    Or to take arms against a sea of judicial adventurism

  50. Pyrmonter

    @ Squirrel

    Until recently, talk of ‘Bills of Rights’ was the expression of the fashionable Left (and mostly not even left-wing lawyers – the former Labor NSW A-G, Hatzistergos, spoke eloquently against them). They mean handing over contentious decisions involving the balancing of interests to the courts. Do you (not you personally, but those who are thinking along these lines) really think that is a Good Idea?

  51. Perplexed of Brisbane

    Chris M
    #3451330, posted on May 12, 2020 at 5:07 pm

    True! But ‘Church’ is the people, the building is just a church building that’s all. In the early church days there were no official buildings, much less fancy ones. People just met in houses.

    That’s correct. It’s why I referred to our foreign brothers and sisters as an example of how we may either choose or have to meet in the future.

    Institutionalised church would have us believe that we must meet in a designated building with an official priesthood.

    It will be an interesting period for churches after this all dies down.

    I’ve just been told that churches can meet again after 10 July (I’m in Brisbane, obviously). There will also be one person per 4 metres so multiple services may have to be run. I have to admit that I am in no rush to go back.

  52. Old Lefty

    As for the fiction that we have no religious tests in Australia: can anyone imagine a practising, orthodox Catholic being appointed to the Bench in the Soviet Socialist Gulag of Victoriastan? (Or, for that matter,. anyone to the right of the hard left?)

  53. Fat Tony

    dover_beach
    #3451214, posted on May 12, 2020 at 3:53 pm
    Why indeed? There can be now continuing rationale for the existing situation that makes attending Mass or the like illegal. It is outrageous but instructive that this isn’t an important issue to the elites.

    I disagree – I think it is a very important issue to the “elites” – the State shall tolerate no worship of any other Gods.

  54. A Happy Little Debunker:

    More people will die from their reaction to Covid19 than will die from Covid19 – yet their stance has barely moved a blip.

    Have there been any statistics released on suicides since the lockdown started?

  55. Bad Samaritan

    The main point being avoided is that the entire pretext for the suppression of all religious gatherings….as well as all political gatherings too….is a fraud; a hoax perpetrated by wankers who are alleged to be the Servants of the Public.

    Ok, so come July/August and there’s a massive heat wave someplace in the northern hemisphere with numerous deaths are we all gonna be put under house arrest so’s “the danger” of sunburn and heat stroke can be “avoided” here too?

    Well, since this precedent of claiming that anything happening up there is also an existential threat down here has been set, why not? NY has a death rate of about 800 per million while Florida sits at about 65 and hawaii on around 25 per million. Sicily has about 50 per million, while north Italy has around 600. Etc etc. Greece has 14 per million, while the UK has 550 or so. Meanwhile the cabal of fascists calling itself the National cabinet reckons Oz is more like the freezing cold places than the warm and hot ones! WTF?

    All was BS from the very Get-Go in Oz!

    BTW: How often must it be stated that the entire social distancing crap is shown to have been a fraud by the govt app’s total disinterest in up-close encounters of less than 15 minutes. those many many normal and fleeting social encounters the fascists banned do not interest it them now at all!

Comments are closed.