Context: South Africa only
I was asked by a Pureblood friend of mine to assist her in writing a letter to her employer Santam, in which she legally declines to be vaccinated under Santam’s Vaccination Policy and keeps her present job exactly as it existed before the Scamdemic. You’ll find the contents of the letter at the foot of this Substack.
The legal fact is that employers have no legal standing to force vaccinate any of their employees who want to keep their present job. Sadly, but predictably the old media and the more high profile legal practices have created the impression that mandated vaccines are a done deal and so just suck it up if you want to keep your job.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Employers do not have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to mandating or forcing vaccines on their employees who want to keep their job, and they know this, because their attorneys have told them!
So why do they do so then? Well it’s certainly not because they have their employees best interests at heart, it’s mainly because they are instructed to do so by their NWO Globalist shareholders; well in the case of the listed companies. These large companies then force their smaller suppliers to fall in lock step….Well that’s my personal opinion, but you decide for yourself.
I’ve previously written a general Substack on this which you can find here but otherwise go down to the copy of the Santam Vaccine Mandates letter below.
The letter is Santam specific, but the general legal principles apply to all vaccine mandates. Simply get an official copy of your company’s Covid 19 Vaccine Mandate Policy and edit the Santam letter accordingly. Please don’t just copy and paste the Santam letter…. you will get nowhere.
PLEASE: Do not stand back, do not allow yourself to be bullied into accepting the jab. The law is most definitely on your side to decline the jab and not get fired.
Santam Vaccination Mandates
1. I both refer and add to my previous correspondence dated < insert date> to which I have as yet not received a reply.
2. Paragraph 3 of Santam’s Covid-19 Vaccination Policy (Mandate Policy) inter alia reads: “For these reasons and in line with the Group’s assessment of risk to the health and safety of employees and third parties, the Group requires all employees to accept the Covid-19 vaccines when they are made available.”
3. The words require and accept may imply that vaccination is compulsory for employees, but paragraph 6 of the Mandate Policy inter alia reads: “The Group recognises that some employees may have valid grounds for choosing not to take the vaccines, including medical grounds. Where an employee shows a valid objective reason for not vaccinating, the Group will treat the employee’s case as one of incapacity (and accordingly try to accommodate the employee) and only thereafter as one of operational requirements and will process the case in line with the Group’s policies and the applicable employment laws.”
This means that the Group accepts that employees have the legal right to decline rather than accept the vaccine provided that they have “valid grounds”.
4. Paragraph 11 of the Group Mandate Policy reads in full: “This policy must be read and applied in conjunction with the applicable legislation, especially the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993, Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 and the Consolidated Directions on Occupational Health and Safety in workplaces issued under regulations of the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002.”
5. Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 as amended (the Constitution) reads: “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.”
This means that any legislation including that referred to in paragraph 4 above and any Group policies or conduct including the Mandate Policy under discussion must be consistent with the Constitution and if not, the legislation and or Group policies and or conduct, including the Mandate Policy are invalid and therefore unenforceable.
6. Chapter 2, Bill of Rights, Paragraph 7(1) of the Constitution reads: “This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.”
In plain language, the use of the word enshrines means that the rights contained in the Bill cannot be trumped by junior statutory legislation, including the legislation or conduct discussed in paragraph 5 above and further means that no one may be discriminated against for asserting their Chapter 2 Rights which indeed is the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Subsection (3) confirms this and reads: “The rights in the Bill of Rights are (only) subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill” and therefore nowhere else including statutory legislation. This means that nothing included in the Mandate Policy may trump any rights included in the Bill of Rights.
7. Chapter 2, Bill of Rights, and under the heading Freedom and security of the person, paragraph 12 (2) of the Constitution reads: “Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right —
(a) (Not applicable);
(b) to security in and control over their body; and
(c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.”
Sub paragraph (b) enshrines the Constitutional right of all people to decline the vaccine as well as any other medical interventions including PCR or other testing.
Sub paragraph (c) strengthens the above because all the vaccines on offer, while approved for marketing under emergency regulations and claimed inter alia to be safe and effective are classified as medical experiments because the clinical trials have not been concluded, the earliest possible conclusion date being in 2023.
8. The Mandate Policy “recognises that some employees may have valid grounds for choosing not to take the vaccines” and asserting one’s Constitutional Rights under the Bill of Rights to decline the vaccine and PCR and any other medical testing are most certainly valid grounds, indeed they are the most robust of all valid grounds, the Constitution being South Africa’s supreme law and any law inconsistent with the Constitution being invalid.
9. The Mandate Policy records that “Where an employee shows a valid objective reason for not vaccinating, the Group will treat the employee’s case as one of incapacity……” and then sets out the process that will be followed.
Treating the employee’s valid case as an incapacity means that the Group holds that employee’s operational efficiency has somehow been reduced and that the employee can no longer function as previously and must therefore be “reassigned to be accommodated in alternative positions (and) may eventually be exited from the Group in terms of the applicable employment laws.”
10. The Group’s Mandate Policy incapacitation process may well be lawful with regards to certain “valid objective reason/s for not vaccinating” but is not when my valid objective reason for not vaccinating is me asserting my Constitutional Chapter 2, rights under paragraph 12 (2) headed freedom and security of the person.
The Group does not consider that their employees who assert their other Constitutional Bill of Rights under the various paragraph headings including, 9) Equality, 10) Human dignity, 11) Life, 13) Slavery, 14) Privacy, 15) Freedom of religion, belief and opinion, 16) Freedom of expression, 17) Assembly, demonstration, picket and petition, 18) Freedom of association, 19) Political rights, 20) Citizenship, 21) Freedom of movement and residence, 22) Freedom of trade, occupation and profession, 23) Labour relations, 24) Environment, 25) Property, 26) Housing, 27) Health care, food, water and social security, 28) Children, 29) Education, 30) Language and culture, 31) Cultural, religious and linguistic communities, 32) Access to Information, 33) Just administrative action, 34) Access to courts, 35) Arrested, detained and accused persons are incapacitated in any way.
By the same standing and practice, the Group will not regard me as incapacitated because I assert my Constitutional right to freedom and security of the person under paragraph 12 (2) of the Bill of Rights because in doing so the Group would be admitting that it is unfairly discriminating against me and the Group’s conduct would be Constitutionally inconsistent and invalid. Furthermore such conduct would make a mockery of our Constitution and our Chapter 2 Bill of Rights.
11. On a more practical front, every vaccine manufacturer offering Covid 19 vaccines in South Africa agrees that none of their vaccines:
1. Provide a vaccinated person with immunity from Covid 19;
2. Prevent a vaccinated person from dying from Covid 19;
3. Prevent a vaccinated person from being infected with Covid 19;
4. Prevent a vaccinated person from transmitting Covid 19.
The vaccine manufacturers single claim, and this is only a claim not a proven scientific fact because the clinical trials have not yet been concluded and will only be conclude at the earliest in 2023, is that vaccinated persons infected by Covid 19 may become less ill than unvaccinated infected by Covid 19. Even if this was true, which seems highly unlikely given the current evidence, an unvaccinated person infected with Covid 19 and becoming more ill than a vaccinated employee would not make him incapacitated and if so, then all ill persons, regardless of the illness, whose symptoms were worse than those of a Covid 19 vaccinated person infected by Covid 19 would have to be considered incapacitated.
The present evidence proves that from an operational perspective, unvaccinated persons present no more risk to the Group or to society at large than vaccinated persons. The opposite may well be the case.
12. Consistent with the Group’s Covid Vaccination Policy dated 1 January 2022, I hereby:
1. Choose not to accept any Covid 19 vaccine. My valid grounds for choosing not to vaccinate are that I assert my Constitutional rights to freedom and security of the person under paragraph 12 (2) (b) and (c) of the Constitution.
2. Decline any Covid 19 testing by way of PCR tests or any similar tests by asserting my Constitutional rights to freedom and security of the person under paragraph 12 (2) (b) and (c) of the Constitution.
3. Will not be unfairly discriminated against by the Group by being labelled or treated as incapacitated as described in the Mandate Policy solely because I have legally asserted my Constitutional rights to freedom and security of the person under paragraph 12 (2) (b) and (c) of the Constitution.
4. Confirm that I shall continue to perform my Group function as before the Pandemic.
5. Confirm that I will vigorously defend my Constitutional rights.
Thank you for this very comprehensive article.
Thank you for a very informative article. I am moving into a retirement village shortly and trust that the same will apply? I had Covid last year and recently had my antibodies tested which came out very high