250. Are vaccine by-laws around the corner?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
This being episode 250, we’re celebrating our 5th birthday!
We’ve covered a lot of ground since those first few wobbly episodes, but there’s always more to learn and share.
This week, I’m highlighting some of the comments I received after last week’s discussion about asbestos in fire doors. I also share insights from the conference I attended with U.S. attorneys, including their prediction that communities will soon be attempting to restrict the “unvaccinated” from using common facilities.
Links mentioned:
- Get the transcript here!
- Productive Insights Website
- Podcast Episode 249. Asbestos in fire door | hard flooring discrimination | unreasonable refusal
- Asbestos Core Fire Doors – SafeWork NSW
- Podcast Episode 208. Finally, an accreditation for fire safety practitioners
- Araya v Owners Corporation SP65717 [2021] NSWCATAD 5
- Knox v Body Corporate for 19th Avenue CTS 6625 [2020] QCAT 497
- Hulena v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 13672 [2009] NSWADT 119 (25 May 2009)
- Friday Facebook LIVE – lessons and laughs from the U.S. conference
By-laws that regulate people based on vaccine status.
Easy enough to ride the wave of public COVID fear and introduce a by-law that segregates the jabbed from the not jabbed, consider if we do go there and it is valid.
THEN
It’s just a jump to the left – to make the same rule in future for those who haven’t had their annual flu jab
AND
Then a step to the right – to extend the concept to kids who do not have a full course of jabs.
AND
With your hands on your hips – make it for anything you like.
The US is far from a model, other than a model of how to over empower owners and make a mess of property rights as we know them. It’s all in the book by the marvelous Cathy Sherry.
And would such a by-law pass muster if tested under s 139?
I certainly hope not.
Yes, I’m inclined to agree with you, Stephen.