A COVID-Era Precedent In Australia That Should Alarm Every Christian Under Its Governance
(Queensland, Australia) — Westerners are used to delineating the years with the timestamps of BC and AD, but since 2020, we have also become accustomed to using BC in a different way—before COVID. Although many have attempted to whitewash the entire event, there are some who are unwilling to let their governments get away with the serious physical, emotional, and financial consequences of the mandates and lockdowns. In my home state of Queensland (Australia), one such man’s fight against the Queensland Government continues. But in attempting to absolve themselves of the claims, the Queensland Government has now put forward an argument that should alarm every Christian under its governance.
The case in question involves a young legal professional by the name of Jayden Beale and relates to COVID-19 workplace vaccination mandates implemented by the Queensland Government during the 2021 and 2022 period. His application has been filed pursuant to Section 59 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which provides a pathway for individuals to challenge alleged breaches of their statutory rights by a public entity. However, the case is not the first of its kind in Queensland. Dozens of Queensland Police Service and Queensland Ambulance Service staff challenged workplace mandates in 2022, with the Queensland Supreme Court later ruling (in 2024) that those mandates breached Section 58 of the Human Rights Act.
Although it was a significant win for those who had been stood down from their positions for refusing “the jab” the Court had made it clear that the decision to impose a mandate was substantively compatible with human rights but there was a failure at a procedural level. Had the procedural element of the mandates not failed, the mandatory vaccine mandates would have remained intact. Therefore, if and when there is another “pandemic,” it is likely businesses and government institutions will again impose vaccine mandates on staff, this time being more careful to get the procedure right. This is why Jayden Beale’s case is so important. It has the potential to set a precedent which would remove that risk entirely for those who object on a human rights basis, particularly when it conflicts with faith-based convictions.
So, in the case of Beale vs Queensland, Mr Beale has sought to argue that measures adopted by the Queensland Government at the time were unlawful or disproportionate, particularly in relation to bodily autonomy, informed consent, and freedom of belief. In fact, in his original application to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, he pointed to the fact that he was opposed to the vaccine mandate on the basis of 1 Corinthians 6:19-20: “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.“
So, in the ever-evolving legal landscape, Beale is attempting to argue that the mandates relied on incomplete scientific data and imposed unreasonable burdens on individuals who had grounds to refuse the vaccine due to sincerely held beliefs. The story has received little attention in Australia’s mainstream media due to the fact that most of the Australian public has moved on from the COVID years. Nevertheless, Beale’s case does represent an overdue examination of state power for many still bearing the scars inflicted by government overreach that was prevalent throughout the so-called pandemic. Yet, the Queensland government has attempted (and failed) on six different occasions to dismiss the case, demonstrating it clearly has no appetite to address these objections in an open court.
Yet, it was during one of its failed attempts to dismiss the case that the Queensland Government, in obvious desperation, raised the ire of Christians. Legal representatives of the Queensland Government reportedly argued that Beale’s objection to the vaccine mandates was not protected religious activity but “Mr Beale’s subjective interpretation [of] parts of the Bible that he relies upon to support his personal choice to avoid vaccination.” In other statements made by Beale, the government’s position becomes clearer. What they are attempting to argue is that Beale’s objections do not constitute protected religious belief because Beale is relying on a personal Biblical interpretation rather than adhering to a specific church code of conduct.
The implication is far-reaching and damaging because it reveals an attitude in public governance which summarily dismisses the important connection between the individual Christian and the Word of God when it comes to matters of conscience and belief. We aren’t talking about immaterial procedural issues here. This is a bold attempt by an Australian public entity to give themselves the right to decide when individual believers can and cannot stand on the Bible when it comes to matters of conscience and personal conviction. Though upsetting, perhaps this should not come as a surprise since we have seen a significant undercurrent in Australian politics which is leading to an erosion of the freedom of belief when it comes to the intersection between faith and public life.
Recently, Australia’s first-ever Australian Christian Freedom Index (ACFI) was launched. The ACFI is a collection of data from more than 10,000 Australian Christians who answered questions regarding their views on faith and freedom in Australia. Relevant to the Beale vs Queensland case are two areas of discrimination that Australian Christians reported. One, secular progressivism has recast Biblical belief as socially harmful. Two, because religious freedoms in Australia are not protected as positive rights but as exemptions through a patchwork of existing legislation, religious freedom is perched precariously on increasingly narrow exemptions that can be litigated away or later repealed. In fact, what will come as unwelcome news to Australian Christians is that the findings reveal we have now reached stage 5 (defamation) on Brobbel’s internationally recognised 8-stage persecution scale. The only remaining stages are detainment, torture and martyrdom!
In times like these I am reminded of the words of David in Psalm 109:1-3: “Do not keep silent, O God of my praise! For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me; they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. They have also surrounded me with words of hatred, and fought against me without a cause.” But I am also reminded of what follows Psalm 109—Psalm 110: the announcement of the Messiah’s reign. Our hope does not lie in better secular governance. Our hope is the Messiah!
