Fluoride in drinking water.
The focus of debates on fluoridation is usually (cleverly) turned to the ground of health benefits to teeth. For the anti-fluoridation campaigner this ground of health, however, is not always the best ground to stand upon, though it is the most common ground.
The media, MP's and most importantly the Government in Court, seem to have a knack of 'winning' on this ground of health. Unfortunately the health debate is often long winded and leaves many confusted, because it involves too many facts for the average person to be able to handle.
The objective of the MP's who want fluoridation is to be seen to win the health debate in the public eye. When there is a debate between two experts, one being for and one being against fluoridation, it is my experience that the public tends to believe the expert that is for the governments position and in line with the popular media.
The pro-fluoride MP's and executive government want you to 'buy into' their pro-fluoride belief. They are selling you their belief-product, and will use any and all advertising tricks such as emotional and mental trigger points to cause you to be pro-fluoride. Convincing the public is a form of mind control. Appearances and public perception is what the game of mass mind control is all about. Cigarette advertising is a case in point of how effective such 'mind control' techniques can be.
The government initiative of fluoridation does not have to be 'right', it simply has to be perceived as being right by the public.

When I do radio interviewers or have conversations with MP's and people who are pro-fluoride, I quite easily cause them to agree with my position that fluoridation ought not happen or ought be stopped. I do this with only one or two simple questions. The questions that I ask are fundamental to jurisdiction and your rights. In those few cases when I do not get agreement, I usually find before me a human that has a vested interest or is in denial of some sort. In those few cases, if nothing else, at least the questions force disclosure of the mental and philosophical position of the person.

A short conversation of only 3 minutes is usually all that is needed for a pro-fluoride man or woman to agree that the government ought not fluoridate public water supplies. Most importantly, those pro-fluoride people thereafter continue to believe that fluoridation is good, but that fluoridation is not good. This is a win-win situation. They agree with me that the government ought not fluoridate community water supplies AND they don't feel threatened or intimidated by their change of mental position from wanting to not wanting fluoridation of public water supplies. You see, the objective of anti-fluoride men and women ought be to get agreement that fluoridation of community water supplies ought not happen, and NOT to cause pro-fluoride people be battered with facts to change their position.My ob jective is not to change someones belief system, but to get agreement that fluoridation ought not happen. It's a bit like "I may not agree with you, but I'll defend your right to have and to say your opinion"
.
In my conversations with strangers, I always assume that I am talking with a person who is pro-fluoridation, and who believes that fluoridation is good. It is their right to believe this way, and I have found that debates on health benefits
Here are some good questions.
1. Is it lawful for the government to medicate you against your consent?
2. Does the government have jurisdiction to medicate me against my consent?
3. Is legislation that causes compulsory fluoridation ultra-virez parliaments power? (beyond the legislated power and authority of parliament to enact?)
4. Do you agree that, even if a medication is good for me, that I have a right to not be medicated if I don't want that medication?
5. If you say apples are good for me and I also like apples, does that mean you have the right to force me eat an apple when I don't want one?
6. If a food or medicine is good for me, do I still have a right to not eat it or not take it?

I know of too many campaigners who stand upon the ground of fluoridation non-health, and engage themselves in hour long debates. But you don't have that amount of time on television or on radio. If you want to win then you need to argue on the ground that cannot be disputed by any human or government or lawyer. If you want to win then argue with
but that
parliamentarians can turn a debate on this
Your right of inviolability of person, to drink fluoride free water and to not be medicated against your informed consent.
We say NO to Fluoride in drinking water. For those who want fluoride, take a tablet. The majority either don't want it or don't need it. Those of us who don't want it do not want to be medicated against our will! So why is it in our drinking water!!
As a consequence of the abuse of our human rights by way of fluoridation, an historic class action is now commenced to prohibit fluoride from being added to our drinking water and to compensate victims of fluoridated water. This is an awesome class action, and is open to all members of our community to join.

GoTop , GoTo Index
FACTS:
1. All the fluoride compounds and chemicals and substances that are added to community water supplies are toxic and upon being ingested or inhaled by a human body, shall cause that human body to be damaged or, in severe reactions, to die. Not all damage is noticed. Our bodies are efficient at eliminating poisons. I will generically name these toxic compounds and chemicals that are added to our community water supplies as Toxic Substances Added or TSA's;
2. TSA's are added to many of our community water supplies throughout Australia. They are transported to the dispensing point under strict procedures.
3. It is your right pursuant to natural law and common law to ingest or not to ingest TSA's pursuant to your will.
4. Whether or not the TSA's are good or not good for your health has nothing to do with your natural law and common law rights to ingest or not to ingest TSA's. Even if the chemicals are good for you, it is still your right to say "NO, I don't want to ingest those chemicals."

5. The rule of law (the proven will of the community) regarding fluoridation of water supplies is well established. The rule of law of the communities around Australia is "NO FLUORIDE in our water supplies". Communities have repeatedly and consistently proven this rule of law.

Fluoridation is ultra virez authority of parliament to enact.
6. The Federal, State or Local governments do not have lawful authority to put you in a circumstance which may cause you to ingest TSA's against your will. Laws created by governments to facilitate the addition of TSA's to water supplies are ultra-virez (beyond the power of) the authority of those governments to enact. The absence of lawful authority for governments to create said laws arises pursuant to: a) The established rule of law;  b) Limitations on the vested authority and powers of governments, which limitations are written into the constitution and foundation laws that creates those governments (s 51, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act; King James Bible 1611.).
7. When government ministers facilitate the addition of TSA's to our community water supplies in the face of an established rule of law and a demonstrated majority opposition, then those government ministers are exposed to community members laying criminal charges and /or making civil claims for damages.

Q1. What are my rights that I can use to stop governments administering fluoride to me via my community water supply?
A1. As a natural persons being administered toxic substances via a community water supplies, many rights are open to you to use. How you, the victim of fluoridated water, use those rights is your choice.
The rights open to you may be classed as either natural law rights, common law rights, bible codified common law rights and constitutional rights. If you want to find out more, then please attend one of our UCAF seminars. At the seminar you can collect the statement of claim for the UCAF class action.

A few of the natural and common law rights open to you to use include, but are not limited to:
Right of inviolability of person: This is the complete protection of a person from interference with the person's life or body. A person thus protected may not be violated. The person protected is said to be inviolable. Those who are familiar with this right are aware of its use in the protection of diplomatic personnel who are granted inviolability of person by virtue of international law (Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 article 40; Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 article 29.). However at common law all persons in our community are granted inviolability of person, though such term is not used in exactly the same way a diplomat would use it. When we charge another person with assault to our bodies, we are using the concept of inviolability of person. Your body is protected by law and is said to be inviolable.

Q2. But how do I use that term. It seems awkward to use?
Good question. When I speak I sometimes don't consider that the terminology I use is foreign. I'll hence forth give some examples for some of the terms for how they may be used.
You may use right of inviolability by simply saying:
"The Federal and state government ministers have passed laws that have caused my person to be violated or that threaten my person to be violated. The government ministers have deliberately and consciously ignored my right of inviolability of person."

When the government ministers make laws to put TSA's in your water, and as a consequence of those laws you thereafter ingest those TSA's against your consent because of a lack of options to not ingest, or a lack of financial resources to remove those TSA's, then it is the case that those ministers are causing your body and your life to be violated against your consent. Those government ministers have ignored your inviolability of person, and have thereafter passed laws that violate your person.

Right of free choice: Your right to ingest or not ingest TSA's into your body pursuant to your will. Your will may arise from the dictates of your conscience, wants, needs or desires or your reasoning, your beliefs, or your instinct.
It is your right to be given the free choice to either ingest or not to ingest TSA's water.
You may use Right of free choice by simply saying:
"The Federal and state government ministers have passed laws that have denied to me or, that threaten to deny to me my right of free choice regarding fluoridation of water supplies. The government ministers have deliberately and consciously ignored my right of free choice and have not fulfilled their duties to provide to me the opportunity to not ingest fluoridated water.."
Normally in day to day life ignoring another persons right of free choice would not provide a cause of action to bring forth a claim, however TSA's in your water is not a normal day to day matter. TSA's are poisons. Government ministers have duties to you, the electors to provide to you the choice of whether you do or do not want particular laws, in this case laws that cause TSA's to be added to your community water supplies.

Q3. But government ministers don't fulfill their duties, they only do what the multinationals tell them to do!
Yes of course they don't fulfill their duties, but I have a vision of ministers that are fully accountable for their actions. I don't mean the actions in their private lives, because that sort of accountability does not stop bad laws and is only a distraction, but accountability for their actions in the jobs as government ministers and servants of the community. What we see can be! Change starts with a vision of what we want, and is then followed with actions to bring forth that vision. The fact that our government ministers do not do their job to discover the will and the choice of we the community of electors, shall not exonerate those ministers from their common law duty of care obligations and liabilities as government ministers. The ministers remain accountable.

Q4 But the ministers don't discover our will or abide by that will even when it is discovered. So what's the point?
The point is that those ministers have a duty of care liability at common law, and are exposed to being held accountable.

Q5. But that will never happen. So once again what's the point!
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Remember war criminals were being tracked down and brought to trial 30 or more years after world war II had ended. But we are not about revenge. We are about taking responsibility as electors to stop this sort of thing from happening in the fri st place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The point is it is our job as electors to control our parliament, and to make ministers accountable. Notwithstanding the actions of ministers, it is their duty in our democratic government to discover the will of the electors regarding the laws surrounding TSA's and to determine that will prior to either drafting and action that law. Referenda are the most lawful and efficient means for determining the will of the electors.
It is also the duty of democratic governments to educate electors regarding the arguments for and against TSA's, and only after such education to conduct a referendum.

Having given to the electors an opportunity to express their choice, it is then incumbent upon the ministers to comply with the will of the electors. It is the duty of democratic governments to:
1. Comply with the will of the majority of the electors regarding fluoridation of water supplies. The will in Australia is to not fluoridate domestic water supplies.
2. Make laws to comply with the will of electors regarding fluoridation of water supplies, i.e. make laws to ban the addition the toxic fluoride substances to domestic water supplies.
3. Make provision for persons who want to ingest fluoride, by providing fluoride tablets to them for free.

4. Give the choice to members of the community. It is the duty of democratic governments to:
4.1 give the choice of fluoridation of our water supplies to the members of the community who are going to ingest or bathe or otherwise use that water.
4.2 provide for free the water filtration equipment needed to remove said fluoride from water, to those who do not want fluoride in their water.

Q6. So what can we do now?
Join UCAF, the UPMART Class Action on Fluoridation.
.
.