New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, smiled during an interview late last week when saying that she was effectively creating two different classes of people in her country, each with different levels of freedom depending on whether they are vaccinated. Ms. Ardern said, “People who have been vaccinated will want to know that they’re around other vaccinated people, they’ll want to know that they’re in a safe environment.”
So, let me see. The vaccinated can contract and spread the virus, just like the unvaccinated. Advocates say, however, that the vaccine still protects from more serious illness that requires hospital treatment. If this is true, it is the unvaccinated who are subject to more serious, even fatal disease—even if they are exposed to the virus by a vaccinated carrier. So Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardem, is far more protective of the vaccinated citizens, to whom the unvaccinated pose only a minor risk, than she is of the unvaccinated citizens, to whom even the vaccinated may prove a mortal danger. She wants to keep the vaccinated “safe” from the unvaccinated, providing freedom and a fuller degree of citizenship to the former and subjecting the latter to repression and to a second-class legal status.
Interesting. Her two-tier system is analogous to the one produced by the Third Reich’s Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935, which were laws protecting German citizens in good standing from the vermin whose contaminated blood made them unworthy of true citizenship in the Reich. Under Ms. Ardern’s smiling autocratic rule, New Zealand has ceased to be a free country and now determines the medical worth of its citizens. Just like a former European state known for its vileness, New Zealand now brands medically those who are unworthy in order to keep them legally segregated from those who are the true worthy sons and daughters of New Zealand. What causes one to be declared unworthy and branded as second-class a citizen? Illness is not required. Perfectly healthy people are branded and segregated. To deserve such treatment, all one must do is refuse to obey the government's mandate. Let that sink in.
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.the big problem today is free, free, free health care. years ago if you did something to your health you paid with money or you died. people are coming here from other countries because canada has free health care. the people who worked and paid taxes never get the benefits.
maryrose
Level 7
Dec 11, 2021
0
it is time for people of new zealand to rise up and be counted. many countries in the word are letting it be known that they will not be pushed.
maryrose
Level 7
Dec 10, 2021
1
According to the BBC, New Zealand is also considering proposals to eliminate smoking in the next generation. Anyone born after 2008 will not be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products in their lifetime, under a law expected to be enacted next year. Now, I am not a fan of cigarettes, and I would not recommend them to young people. But this looks like yet another attempt to use government coercion (not persuasion) to achieve a goal that the government thinks is desirable. It also produces two different groups: those who can legally smoke born before 2008 and those who cannot legally smoke born after 2008.
If the government can restrict this personal habit citing the public's health, what other things might the government coercively restrict or control: the number of alcoholic beverages or cups of coffee a person can have per month (too much can be a health problem), the number of showers a person can have per week (people don't need to shower every day and clean water is precious), how much meat a person can eat each month (meat is a wasteful, carbon-producing food source), how far a person may travel from home each month (got to reduce that carbon footprint), a set amount of exercise per day (we must keep the populace fit), forced termination of pregnancies revealed as not meeting a government standard of genetic health (must have robust and healthy children to reduce costs for the health system), etc.
The real issue is not whether smoking is healthy. It's not. The real issue is whether government coercion in private decisions is actually healthier. In principle, preventing people from smoking by government decree is very much like restricting by law the number of children parents may have. China gave us a good example of what happens when governments use coercive power to do the latter. It looks like New Zealand will give us an example of the social consequences when such coercion is used to do the former. But in both cases, strutting, arrogant bureaucrats, convinced of their elite social engineering skills, can be identified as the coercive fist behind the mask of public health. Behind that mask is the true purpose of such policies. It is submission, not the public's health.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.