I know that we here at The BFD like to poke fun at our woke colleagues over at Stuff, but let’s be fair: once in a while they do publish something of merit. In this case, an opinion piece from the last days of innocence before Pandemic Panic swamped the world — a piece which hasn’t aged a day.
Compulsion is being proposed as the way to address factors affecting vaccination uptake: low confidence, complacency and convenience.
It is not.
Firstly, there’s the fact that coercion just doesn’t work. Amanda Vickers cites the same 2017 research I’ve also reported, which found no difference in vaccine uptake between European states with voluntary or mandatory vaccination.
Then there’s the morality of the argument.
It is also the least ethical option.
Ethically, various codes have been designed to protect us from unconsented medical intervention. The Nuremberg Code set out to ensure no person had medical procedures performed without explicit consent. With the formation of the United Nations came the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New Zealand has a Bill of Rights (1990).
The concept of a Bill of Rights goes back to the American constitution — written with the realisation of the need to protect the rights of all from the tyranny of the majority. As history has also shown, “the greater good” has been the excuse of the most brutal tyrants.
The premise of the “greater good” is being used to support arguments for forced medication of the population. In terms of protecting the very young, the very old and the very sick, it is important these groups are sufficiently well cared for, so as not to contract any illness, regardless of whether the rest of the population has been vaccinated or not.
The question that needs addressing is whether it is for our “greater good” to have the government make our “informed consent” decisions for us, and then force those decisions upon us. Our forefathers would likely not have seen this imposition as a “greater good”.
The brute fact of mandatory vaccination is that it necessarily entails the state appointing itself as authority over its citizens’ bodily sovereignty. Would the proponents of mandatory vaccination allow the state to force women to abort possibly “unfit” foetuses? Euthanase the “burdensome” chronically ill, aged, or recidivist criminals?
We heard just such arguments — mostly from the political left — in the 1920s. Suffice to say, it didn’t end well.
Of course, proponents of vax mandates argue that they’re not forcing anyone to take them — only depriving them of nearly every liberty and necessity, even the means to sustain themselves. But who is fooled that such coercion is any different from outright force?
Now, though, we get to the part that has aged like fresh milk in the sun.
The National Party is discussing, and ACT is proposing, vaccine coercion, while Winston Peters has personally endorsed mandatory vaccination […]
Thankfully, Labour has had the sense to stand firm against mandates – for now.
Stuff
(Short pause to wipe the beverages from your screens.)
To their, well, credit, the Social Credit party is still standing by their anti-mandate policy — and asking ordinary New Zealanders to make their opinions felt.
Social Credit calls on employers and the public to exercise civil disobedience to oppose vaccine mandates by ignoring them, not implementing Covid registers, and not sacking unvaccinated employees.
Mahatma Ghandi used non-violent civil disobedience to oppose oppressive actions of the British government in India.
The time has come for New Zealanders to do the same to oppose the oppressive actions of our government.
Social Credit
Social Credit emphasises that it is not anti-vaccination, nor aligned with Voices for Freedom — only pro-choice. It is also opposed to the bullying and lies from not just the government, but the major opposition parties.
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD