Greek Court questions Covid science – overturns mandates
But power-drunk government refuse to accept defeat in the face of legal rulings
By Adam Edwards
You won't have heard this on the BBC, but 7,000 "unvaccinated" healthcare workers were ordered back to work in Greece last week, following a successful appeal to the country's highest administrative court.
The Greek Council of State sided six to one in favour of the Panhellenic Federation of Public Hospital Employees (POEDIN) and ruled the healthcare jab mandate “unconstitutional” and the workers must be reinstated.
Even more surprisingly, the judges scolded the Greek Government for attempting to extend the ban on unjabbed workers into 2023, citing the lack of “up-to-date scientific and epidemiological data, the value, effectiveness and the consequences of the coronavirus vaccines, or the ongoing pandemic trends”.
Put simply, the judges seemed to hint that the jabs are not only pretty useless, but could potentially be dangerous too.
Rather than concede defeat, however, the Greek Government has hinted that it may ignore the ruling and block the workers' return.
They are not alone in such intransigence.Across America, Democrat politicians have shown utter contempt for any legal rulings against coronavirus mandates.
Just last week, yet another US court was forced to uphold an injunction preventing the Biden administration's attempts to sack “unvaccinated” military personnel. The intervention by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, prevented about 10,000 servicemen and women from being sacked while they await an outcome on their religious exemption claims against the Biden mandate.
In the past week, a Californian court of appeal was also forced to intervene and stop a school jab mandate that had been ruled illegal by another court last year. Like the military, San Diego's Unified School District had refused to accept earlier rulings against its “no jab, no school” policy.
As more and more evidence emerges of the Covid shots’ ineffectiveness, such actions confirm what many suspected and some politicians confirmed at the time: that the mandates were never about anything other than politics and signalling deference to authority.
Indeed, establishment judges seem determined to prevent cases from ever seeing the inside of courtrooms.
For example, a US Supreme Court challenge against federal workers' mandates was rejected last week, when an appointee of former Democrat president Bill Clinton, ruled that an unjabbed worker facing the sack did not meet the requirements for making a legal challenge – because he had not yet officially been disciplined.
In Canada, on the other hand, attempts to force a constitutional ruling on the Canadian Government’s travel ban on the unjabbed were blocked by a judge because the restrictions were no longer in place.
The judge ruled that the case was “moot” because the law had been temporarily suspended just days before the case was due to begin.
Her rationale was that the alleged crime in question was no longer taking place, so could not be prosecuted – a decision that drew outrage from the claimants, who likened it to a murderer or thief being let off by a judge because they were not still committing the attacks while in the dock.
In reality, the Trudeau government was widely expected to lose the case, which was being brought by, among others, the only living signatory of the Canadian constitution, Brian Peckford.
Politicians and the judiciary know that the longer they can keep cases out of the courts, the longer they can slip the metaphorical noose.
But a reckoning is coming. Last week, Brian Peckford filed an appeal to have the judge's decision overturned.
Meanwhile, the shenanigans over the US military mandates are looking increasingly destined to wind up in the Supreme Court, assuming, that is, that the soon-to-be Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not overturn the mandates, as promised, before it comes to that.
The Covidians are on borrowed time, as last week proved: not only were anti-lockdown protesters re-branded as “heroic” by the mainstream media, but Pfizer's CEO Albert Bourla was found to have made “misleading'“ statements about his jabs by the UK’s pharmaceutical regulator.
The truth, it seems, does always out in the end – even if you never hear about it on the BBC.
Institutions and the people in them that we could trust in the past have now all become corrupt. We can no longer have faith in them and we must find ways to deal with life on our own. No one is coming to save us, least of all Republicans in congress.
Worth reading and very disturbing