WESTERN Australia’s Public Health Act 2016, section 158, is a recipe for totalitarian control of the population of the worst type – something equivalent to the East German Stasi’s terrorism of suspected dissenters among the population.
Section 158 says, in plain English, the government can order you to undergo medical observation, medical examination, medical treatment, or even vaccination.
And if you don’t comply the Act says an “authorised officer” or police can apprehend you (that’s arrest, if you missed the subtlety), detain you in a place until you comply, restrain you while the “procedure” is done, and even remove your clothes, including underwear, if “reasonably necessary.”
Don’t worry, though – they promise to try and keep it “decent.” That’s like saying: “We’re robbing your house, but don’t stress – we’ll wipe our feet first,” say West Austalians Alan MacGregor and Phil Scott.
“Now, some will say “Relax, it’s just for emergencies, it’s for your health. Yeah, sure – and just two weeks to flatten the curve wasn’t supposed to stretch into years, either.”
The say the dangers are obvious – for instance bodily autonomy, or the right at common law to informed consent to medical treat is violated, as it was during Covid.
“If the state can order you to be jabbed, examined, or treated against your will, your body isn’t yours anymore. It’s theirs,” the West Australians warn.
And then there are the police powers to deal with alleged public health emergencies.
“Since when was medicine enforced with handcuffs? If the doctor can’t convince you, suddenly it’s the copper’s job?
“Section 158 lets them remove clothing if needed. That’s not “public health,” that’s authoritarian creep.”
The West Australians note that the law hangs on vague definitions like “serious public health incident.” But who decides that? The same politicians who told us wearing masks outside was “following the science?”
And then it gets even more Orwellian. “Climate change” has already been labelled a “health risk.” That means sweating, coughing from smoke, dehydration, heatstroke – all could be grounds for state intervention.
“You’re sweating? Off to detention. Didn’t drink enough water? That’s a health risk. Too much sun? Better get that enforced treatment,” the West Australians speculate.
So how does this so-called legislation shape up under the Commonwealth Constitution?
“This isn’t just a WA thing. It tangles with the Commonwealth Constitution. Two key sections that matter here are Section 51 (Federal powers) and Section 61.
Section 51 lists what Canberra can legislate on. It includes quarantine and medical services (23A), but there’s a kicker that says “not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription.” “Forcing you into medical compliance sure smells like the civil conscription, mentioned in Section 51 (23A) of the Commonwealth Constitution, doesn’t it?”
Section 61 gives the Commonwealth executive power. And governments love to stretch “executive power” like pizza dough – suddenly it covers anything they want, from border closures to forced jabs.
The West Australians suggest that if WA sets the precedent with its Public Health Act Section 158, Canberra can point to it and say: “Look, the states already do this. Let’s nationalise it.”
“Imagine the scene: You’re at a BBQ. It’s 38°C. You’re sweating through your shirt. A health officer rolls up with a clipboard. Sir, you’re exhibiting symptoms of climate-related health risk,” they said.
“Next thing you know, you’re in the back of a police van on the way to a detention centre for rehydration therapy.
“And if you resist? Don’t worry, the law says they can restrain you, strip you, and inject you. All for your ‘safety’.
“Phil Scott is right. One Nation is right. Section 158 is a time bomb sitting in WA law, waiting for the wrong government at the wrong time to press the big red button.”
The WA dissenters says Section 158 must be repealed or amended.
“The WA Parliament must roll this back. Strip out the forced compliance, detention, and clothing removal powers,” they said.
“The so-called health risks should also be defined narrowly and not be a Trojan horse for every political agenda.
“Climate change, lifestyle choices, even ‘misinformation’, all could creep into ‘health risk’ definitions if we don’t lock it down.”
On parliamentary and judicial oversight of the legislation, no single health officer or minister should have the power to declare emergencies and unleash police on the public.
Every order should be subject to review and if emergencies are declared, they must expire fast unless renewed by full parliamentary vote.
Scott adds that the more people know what’s written in these laws, the less chance politicians can hide behind the excuse “no one saw this coming”.
“We’ve seen how quickly governments grab power in a crisis. COVID showed us that. Now Section 158 shows how far they’re willing to write it into law.
“If you value freedom in WA – if you don’t want cops with syringes knocking at your door in the next ‘serious incident’ – you need to stand with people like Phil Scott and One Nation,” said MacGregor.
“Australia didn’t fight to become a free state just to hand police the right to strip and jab you in the name of ‘health’. Section 158 is the canary in the coal mine – and the coal mine is on fire.
“The choice is simple: repeal it, or live under it. And once it’s used, you don’t get your freedoms back.”
