UNMASKED, EXEMPTED PATIENT REFUSED ENTRY BY HER GP

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address or Messenger. Significant matters of faith and morals  may also be posted on this page.

Today an unvaxxed reader of this blog was refused entry to her local medical centre. By her doctor. Because she refuses to wear a mask.

Standing at the door, having been grilled on her state of health, she was met by her GP dangling a mask.

"I have an exemption," she said.

"What is your exemption?" he asked. 

"I don't have to tell you," she said.

"But I'm your doctor!" he expostulated. "You don't have a medical reason for not wearing a mask!"

"There's no medical reason for me to wear a mask, either," she said.

He was keen to pursue the conversation, but his patient felt the doorway was not the appropriate place for it. She turned and took off.

Within half an hour she had a text from the GP, asking if there was anything he could do for her by phone or video link and informing her that he was "sorry that I cannot let you enter our premises without a mask'.

But she'd told him she had an exemption. An exemption may be on grounds other than medical. Should a GP not know this? His heel-clicking mentality could be attributed to his ethnicity - we'll just say "don't mention the war!" and leave it at that.

And, speaking of war,

"We are now in a time of war. It is a war unlike any conventional war that we have experienced .... and quite frankly, it may be a war the likes of which the world has never seen.

'It is a war that was initiiated and is being waged by the children of darkeness against the Children of Light. No doubt the "woke" illuminati of the fallen world will object to a distinction based upon darkness and light but we are on solid biblical ground with this vivid descriptor contrasting forces of good and evil. This is a physical and spiritual war conducted by the Prince of Darkness against the earthly saints of the God. ...

"We may need to employ asymmetrical warfare tactics. ... We need to undermine the enemy, who presumes our submission to authority and honesty in every situation. We propose that now is the time for disobedience and deception. In proposing this, we stand with the opinions of the two foremost ecclesiastical voices speaking publicly"

- Father Celatus, writing in The Remnant newspaper, October 15). Father Celatus quotes Archbishop Vigano (see below) - and Bishop Athanasius Schneider who lived under the tyranny of Soviet Russia and who states:

"The de facto compulsory vaccine is an abuse of power on the part of the government; that is in itself immoral. By it ... the government is becoming the owner of your body and your privacy, and this is against your fundamental rights. God ordered the structure of society which government has not the power to do. The intrinsically evil law of forced vaccination which is in some way connected or tainted with abortion and the fetal industry is immoral. Because it is a forced act, I think you can in this way present even a fake document.

"I would compare this situation with the immoral laws when some totalitarian governments issued immorl orders against the Jews. We know that Pope Pius XII and the bishops, when the Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, permitted the use of fake documents to protect the Jews. It was allowed because the laws against the Jews were intrinsically immoral.

 

Nazi propaganda poster:"Jews are Lice - they spread Typhus"

"It would be a kind of self-defense: you defend yourself, your body and your privacy from an aggressor who is (oppressing) you. ... When there are no other ways, it is the last means of self-protection against the aggression of the state."

As for our reader, her exemption from wearing a mask is not on physical, medical or mental grounds; her grounds are religious. She refuses to wear a mask because for her it would be a lie: a mask announces to all and sundry that either the wearer believes that a mask provides protection, or that they're conforming to the government's diktats out of fear - of reprisal, and/or public opinion. You know - being thought of by the locals as 'peculiar'. 

The Human Rights Commission:

Someone who holds a religious belief that prevents them from wearing a face covering may be able to object on religious grounds. Generally, someone making a claim on religious grounds would need to show their belief is sincere and connected to an established religion, rather than a personally held belief . 

Knowing our reader, it's fair to say that anyone else who knows her at all well would realise her belief is sincere and connected to an established religion, in fact THE established religion: that of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  

The Public Health Response Order is clear that if someone has a physical or mental illness, condition or disability that makes wearing a face-covering unsuitable, then they do not have to. 

Okay, so our reader has a 'condition' - one of conscience, which makes wearing a face-covering 'unsuitable'. So she does not have to. Done and dusted, Doctor So-and-So. 

People with face covering exemptions still have the right to visit supermarkets, healthcare, and other businesses and services without wearing a face covering. It is not mandatory to show an exemption card.

So there you go. 

If you think you have faced unlawful discrimination, you can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

But it's not likely that our reader will make a complaint to the HRC against her doctor. Why not? Because unless she believed it would be helpful to others, it would be contrary to her "sincere belief". 

Mandating the user (sic) of face-coverings is justified as long as restrictions are legal, necessary, reasonable and based on scientific evidence. It is not a breach of one’s human right to be required to wear a face-covering.

According to our reader's Catholic belief, "an unjust law is no law at all" (Ss Augustine and Aquinas). According to her common sense, face coverings are neither necessary or reasonable. According to her extensive research, they are not based on scientific evidence.

It is not a breach of one’s human right to be required to wear a face-covering

Uh-oh. Shows you how much reliance should be placed on the Human Rights Commission - either for justice or grammar.

 Face coverings can help reduce the spread of Covid-19. https://www.hrc.co.nz/resources/human-rights-relation-covid-19/

Or for facts.  

You can apply for an exemption card to show people if challenged, but there is no requirement to carry one - you just need to meet the criteria under the health orders.

Our reader is satisfied she meets the criteria under the health orders. And so she intends to inform her GP. 

She says she was greatly encouraged in keeping the appointment this morning, after the peremptory "Are you double-vaccinated?" question asked when she rang asking to see her doctor yesterday, by reading over her breakfast toast the following statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, in The Remnant (October 15 issue; she doesn't have much time for reading):

Where authority fails in its duties and indeed betrays the purpose for which it has been established, disobedience is not only lawful but obligatory: non-violent disobedience, at least for now, but determined and courageous.

However, it seems our reader wasn't disobedient. At least, not yet ...  

... Everything about the global conspiracy currently unfolding shows us a tremendous reality that is also at the same time sharp and clearly-defined: there are two sides, the side of God and the side of Satan, the side of the children of the Light and the side of the children of darkness.

It is not possible to come to terms with the Enemy, nor is il possible to serve two masters (Mt 6:24). The words of Our Lord must be engraved in our minds: "Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Mt 12:30).

Hoping to build a world government in which the Divine Kingship of Jesus Christ is outlawed is insane and blasphemous, and no one who has such a plan will ever succeed. Where Christ reigns, peace, harmony and justice reign; where Christ does not reign Satan is a tyrant. ...

Let us turn to Christ, Christ who is the King of hearts, of families, of societies, and of nations. Let us proclaim Him as Our King and Mary Most Holy as Our Queen. Only in this way can the wicked project of the New World Order be defeated. 

 

Jesus, crowned with thorns in a Tyrian purple robe as the King of the Jews, being mocked and beaten during his Passion, depicted by van Baburen, 1623.