I will in this document be comparing this incident from February 1st, 2021 with the actual mandate the police are meant to be following. The incident is being used as an example case within the first day of a snap five day lock-down in Perth implemented on the 31st of January, 6pm which began with just a few hours notice after 10 months of no lock-down in Perth. It is evident the early publication of this incident and the apprehension of this man is designed to incite fear and quell any people considering questioning police directions regarding masks.
It is important to note that just because a police officer tells you to do something it does not mean that it is the law. As an activist I have witnessed the police taking the law into their own hands and using their powers outside of what the law permits; they have then been taken to court and have lost in court - sometimes sued for large sums of money for the trouble they caused.
Many people aren't aware of the way police often operate in Australia and so don't bother putting up a fight assuming the police to be infallibly correct. You might ask, the law is their job isn't it? Why would they be doing any different?
We can go into a scope of reasons why people are attracted to the police force including to project inferiority complexes on the people around them or to accommodate hero complexes but that is not my focus here.
It takes time and energy to fight - a lot of people just submit so they don't have to put up a fight. But it must be understood that if it is really this difficult to stand up for your rights, is this land really free? When I say fight, I do not mean violence in the literal sense - I mean taking fines and charges to court and standing up for yourself in a court of law with a keen knowledge of the law in hand.
To many people in Australia before the Covid Histeria began they would have assumed freedom to be a real thing. Yet to many Australians now experiencing a form of totalitarian state being imposed upon their lives intermittently as a result of a minimal threat in the name of safety - that definition of freedom is being questioned.
Let us first make a quick analysis of the veracity of masks and the intentions to use them on the entirety of the population and not just the sick, the symptomatic or health-care workers as a means by which to reduce community transmission.
Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era, May 2020
List of authors: Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
Why Face Masks Don’t Work, 2016
Author: John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC
Between 2004 and 2016 at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. All agree that the poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles. In their well-referenced 2011 article on respiratory protection for healthcare workers, Drs. Harriman and Brosseau conclude that, “facemasks will not protect against the inhalation of aerosols.”
Also:
Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection.
And:
It should be concluded from these and similar studies that the filter material of face masks does not retain or filter out viruses
In addition:
The PFE test is a basis for comparing the efficiency of face masks
when exposed to aerosol particle sizes between 0.1 and 5.0 microns.
The Centre for Disease Control in America (CDC) admitted indirectly that cloth masks are not effective in blocking a particles in smoke from a natural fire (0.4 - 0.7 microns) and yet virus particles are as small or smaller than smoke particulates.
In addition, a very recent high quality study in Denmark, the ONLY randomized control trial we have that provides a direct comparison of mask wearers to non-mask wearers in a pandemic setting; had 6000 participants and multiple tests to make sure diagnosis of Covid-19 was effective (as PCR tests can give up to 97% false positive readings):
Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face masks, which they were told to change after eight hours of use. After one month, the trial participants were tested using both PCR, antibody and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did not wear a mask.
In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. 1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught Covid, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group. As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.
Some people, of course, did not wear their masks properly. Only 46 per cent of those wearing masks in the trial said they had completely adhered to the rules. But even if you only look at people who wore masks ‘exactly as instructed’, this did not make any difference to the results: 2 per cent of this group were also infected.
When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.
This is just a handful of the information that can be found on the subject. It is obviously a highly contentious issue because while we are told they work by the global organisations via the mainstream media - the evidence is stacked up against them.
Continued reading: https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/06/coronavirus-fact-check-6-does-wearing-a-mask-do-anything/
I once again remind my readers to use duckduckgo.com or presearch.org for their searches as the neutrality of Google has been compromised for many years.
Returning to the main subject of this article:
So what is mask the policy at present in Western Australia?
[Thanks 
Updated Face Covering Directions, Section 72A of the WA Emergency Management Act (2005)
https://www.docdroid.net/ZnEB7mn/310121-face-covering-directions-pdf
I will post the entirety of the document as jpg here:
3b. states that someone is exempt from wearing a mask if they have a physical or mental illness, condition or disability which makes wearing a face mask unsuitable.
Nowhere does it state that a medical certificate is required to acknowledge this. Aside from this, I was stopped yesterday at a beach with a friend by the police and the friend said she has asthma and was unable to wear one for this reason - the police stated that this was not a suitable exemption. This is false. The police don't know the law themselves.
I have a breathing difficulty when I wear a mask and I get anxiety from wearing a mask and seeing people in masks all around me, this anxiety creates distress and further breathing difficulties - will others not act in the aid of my distress? Or shall I only act in aid of their histeria when it comes to a lie that has been repeated over and over until to them it is self-evident.
It would be worth printing out this document and carrying it around. If there is an altercation with the police to show them the document and request calmly that they speak to their superiors regarding it and address the law itself and not their interpretation of the law.
You must always be calm with police.
It is not up to the police to diagnose you on the spot or to question your condition - they are not qualified for this. You have given sufficient reason for exemption and it sits within the rule of the policy that they are meant to be following. Just be patient and wait for the full communication.
"Are you qualified to diagnose me or assess my condition?"
If you are arrested and/or fined you must take this to court. If you are harassed and have experienced considerable mental distress from the situation you can sue them for damages. The bottom line with the police is money. If you cost them more money than they can hope to make out of you, they drop the case immediately. I've seen it happen and it's opened my eyes to the reality that the police are just another industry.
If possible, record your interaction with the police via your phone and do this in a calm manner, it is within your rights to do so in public. If they obstruct you from doing this or ask you to delete footage they can be held liable for assault or trespass. If there is aggression on their part when there is clearly no aggression on your part, this will provide good evidence for your case. It also keeps them calm because they know they are being recorded and can be held liable in a court of law using this footage.
Take this woman in Melbourne for example - excuse the graphic footage but I'm using it to prove a point - the story in the end, she had a valid exemption and was let off without charges - however, if she knew the law, she could sue the police for damages - up to half a million dollars. That's what I mean - you don't have freedom unless you are willing to fight it in court - all the law that the police take into their own hands, all the intimidation is tacitly accepted by the majority of the population - will it be you too?
This woman disagreed with the policeman and refused the order - and so having his authority questioned, he decided to 'take the law into his own hands' (or her neck at least) - obviously not considering that getting so close with this person in a violently physical way is no way to contain an apparently highly contagious virus.
This article regarding the incident (full of spin mind you) states:
The woman was not fined for failing to wear a mask “because she later told police she had an exemption”.
Situations like this can be avoided if you remain calm and assertive with the police. Understanding that you are sometimes dealing with unstable individuals who are looking for any reason to dominate something in their life.
If you are not violent and state your knowledge calmly and assertively, they can do nothing but have a civil discussion with you. If you stress out and get fidgety and muddle your words and get visibly angry they may deem you as a threat and try to arrest you.
While we all get angry or frustrated in situations where we feel powerless - we need to find another place for our anger that isn't in interacting with the police. To give them an angry reaction is to give them a reason to detain you. It is much harder to detain a calm individual who is certain of their rights and carries the documentation with them to prove it.
Some people have exemptions? No, all people have exemptions if they choose to give themselves one. It's within your rights to do so.
Referring to the article that I started this tirade with:
A 41-year-old man from Ellenbrook has been charged with ‘Failed to comply with a direction’ and ‘Fail to comply with request to give police personal details’. He was refused bail and appeared in the Perth Magistrates Court today, Monday 1 February 2021. He was refused court bail and is next due to appear in the Midland Magistrates Court on Friday 19 February 2021.
I would have liked to see a video of the interaction.
However if you are to believe this article (because the police do lie - even in court) - this man dealt with this situation ineffectively. He already gave up his rights the moment he refused to wear a mask. You must never outright refuse a police direction - you must answer their direction with a question.
"How does this direction apply to me as I have an exemption?"
He must state that he has an exemption. Then they will likely ask where is your medical certificate for this exemption and he must then state,
"In section 72A of the Emergency Management Act I am not required to provide any documentation as proof of my exemption. I am stating now I have an exemption, I cannot breathe properly when wearing a mask."
And also again, "Are you qualified to diagnose or assess my condition?"
Then if they push him further, remaining calm, he needs to ask them to refer to their superiors on this matter as they are not conducting themselves inline with the current policy.
If they remain antagonistic this man will be given a fine, but more often than not they will indeed refer to their superiors because - the police know they don't know the law well, they are just given blanket law style instructions by their superiors to go and carry out on the masses.
If after consultation with the superiors, the man will be free to go, it is important to stand your ground! Know your law and stand firm in your knowledge of it!
Do not deny or refuse police directions instead interject with previously stated clauses. For example, how does this apply to me as, as I have stated I have an exemption. If they push the medical certificate thing state the same statement again - in section 72A of the Emergency Management Act I am not required to provide documentation regarding my exemption. I have stated that I have an exemption. And again, are you qualified to diagnose me or assess my condition?
The policy is not specific that an exemption be in a card, a document or anything physical. Your statement qualifies as an exemption.
Stand firm!
If after all this, you are not let free to go and they do give you a fine and force you under duress to sign anything - you sign in the following manner -
V.C. [your signature]
or
... [your signature]
or
By... [your signature]
[Your full name printed underneath your signature in capital case]
All Rights Reserved [underneath your printed name]
Have it all fit in the signature box and have it all slightly joining so nothing can be cut off.
The latter is the most definitive and is used to reserve all your rights the first two are legal ways of signing under duress. If you are signing other documents not under duress the latter can be used without the '...' and with a colon instead - when this is put on enough of your documents, you can prove it is your signature by showing previous documentation signed that way - your signature literally reserves your rights to not enter into contract.
Both V.C. (Vi Coactus which means literally “under constraint”) and the ellipses '...' provide proof in court that you signed the document under duress and you cannot be held liable to the terms of that contract.
When you go to court for this fine - be sure to consult a lawyer or law expert who has experience in common law and the area of policy you wish to contest.
Do not consult the lawyer they assign to you automatically - 90% of the time they recommend you make a settlement and accept the charges as they work along side the police to create fast settlements.
If you're really game, take this one all the way to the high court and challenge its lawfulness according to the constitution. But of course, this is going to take a bit of knowledge, a few good friends and a bit of steam power.
It takes a little effort to stand up for yourself in court but once you've done it once, you can go on to help others doing the same.
We need to empower ourselves and others to make the changes in society we wish to see - to claim the freedom we always thought we had.
So regardless of if you can do the insanely revolutionary act of walking around outside with no one around and not wearing a mask (Jesus, what has the world come to that this is revolutionary!) - some stores may still refuse you entry.
So we need a couple of hacks...
A friend of a friend who went down the gruelling Melbourne lock-down last year who survived the entire martial law lock-down without wearing a mask had this to say -
Don't enter an argument with the shop-owner about your rights - don't start a discussion, as soon as you've done this, you've lost. Instead, wear a lanyard around your neck simply stating that you have an exemption, walk into the store and when asked about the mask say 'I have this,' and point to the sign - you may still be asked to register your name and details but you will be left alone for your shop.
Once again, shop owners themselves, like the police, will not be aware of what the law actually is and take it as an absolute maxim that you need to wear a mask. No matter how right you are, you must remain calm and refrain from entering into a discussion or argument - just present it as self-evident that you have an exemption. Being right won't get you in the door.
By law you can have an exemption for no other reason than the simple fact that you have given yourself one. It is not to say that we are going to use this information and start painting our spit on the walls of the city (use your sense people), it is to say we do not simply follow orders - we are people with rights and we have the capacity to make intelligent rational deductions based on evidence based science and not on beliefs of assumed experts.
Stand up for your rights people - be calm and confident in the knowledge of the law. Know your rights and stand your ground.
Sending love and good luck! It's a jungle out there!
Monty
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer or a law professional. Do your own research and make your own decisions!
ps. Here's a recent update from 
from this post here: @jasonliberty/covid1984-mask-mania-science-strikes-again-video