When it comes to vaccination...
The pretext for mandatory (including forced, coerced and bribed) vaccination is, and has always been, that vaccination: a) prevents disease and death; and b) is completely safe.
Both of the above statements are easily challenged in the light of the millions of adverse events globally (including deaths) from COVID-19 gene modifying preparations (aka COVID vaccines).
There are many reasons why someone may not wish to be jabbed. There are also many reasons why someone may decide to be jabbed, but wouldn’t want to be required or mandated to have a jab. In a nutshell, this is the exercise of bodily autonomy:
“My body, My choice.”
But proponents of this philosophical ideology are increasingly being painted as selfish, and even criminal or terrorist.
Why isn't it working?
As long as there’s an underlying ASSUMPTION that “vaccines are safe and effective,” you can never fight vaccine mandates in a courtroom and expect to win, certainly not in a post-Covid era where the “greater good” argument trumps all individualistic ideals.
THE ASSUMPTION is that there’s no harm to you, and it helps you and everybody else if you take the jab…
So, if your bottom line is that it’s “My body, My choice,” then the courts will say (as they effectively DID say, in the recent judicial review of the care home regulations), “Tough. Vulnerable people need to be protected. You pose a risk. Your choice is to get jabbed or get another job.”
That is also what your fellow citizens are saying – you are experiencing ‘Tyranny of the Masses’!
“BUT THE ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG!!!” I hear you scream.
Time to challenge the assumptions?
It’s a noble stance to maintain that each human being is ‘sovereign’ and has inalienable rights, including bodily autonomy…
But when your opponent (the government) is wielding the weapon of “your bodily autonomy is a threat to others,” and that weapon is powered by the false assumption that “vaccines are safe and effective,” you don’t just repeat the mantra of bodily autonomy they’ve already attacked; you must attack THEIR CORE philosophy – prove the assumption is false, and their weapon becomes useless.
It’s a bit like when you tell your child that there will be no more sweets, because sweets will ruin their appetite / rot their teeth / make them hyper, and their argument is, “but I WANT SWEETS.” You’ve already answered that argument and shown it’s not valid. So, expecting to get the sweets by declaring they WANT them is going backwards, not forwards in the conversation. You are at loggerheads, or an impasse. A war of attrition. Whoever holds most strongly to their position will ‘win.’
Now, if your child were to provide EVIDENCE that sweets would NOT ruin their appetite / rot their teeth / make them hyper, that would neutralise your underlying argument. There would be no reason why your child shouldn’t have the sweets. The fact that your child simply WANTED the sweets, and that was why they got them in the end, has not changed. They just proved your assumptions wrong, which made YOUR argument invalid!
What's the winning argument?
By analogy, in the fight over medical mandates, YOU are the child and the government is the parent (except they don’t necessarily have your best interests at heart).
Demanding bodily autonomy when the government says bodily autonomy is DANGEROUS, is going backwards, not forwards in the discussion. It will achieve little but further alienate and vilify you, which is what you’re fighting against.
So, when it comes to medical mandates, your position might be “my body, my choice” but the winning argument is, “where there is RISK, there MUST be choice.” You might believe in the first statement. But if you want to win, you will use the second. It doesn’t compromise your position, but it DESTROYS the government’s position. It is also an argument that the media can’t use to taint you with a health terrorist label.
Also, you are more likely to be heard those who have fallen prey to coercion, bribery and threats, because they’ll now see your interests are the SAME as theirs – everybody’s health and well-being.
To further explain: “My body, my choice” works for abortion rights, because it is obvious there are consequences to the woman mentally and physically if she is to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. By contrast, you are NOT expected to suffer ANY consequences from a gene modifying injection laden with neurotoxins (because the government says they’re 100% safe), so why wouldn’t you just roll up your sleeve like everyone else (because the government says it will save lives and allow everyone to return to normality)?
So, you see, “MY BODY, MY CHOICE” is not the winning argument against mandatory vaccination. Not unless you can first prove that vaccines are neither safe, nor effective, in the way they are commonly believed to be.
Should medical mandates be OUTLAWED?
The UK, being a bastion of peace and democracy (sarcasm?), has not had compulsory vaccination since it was banned in the late nineteenth century. The United States and other countries around the world, however, have been battling with the issue for decades.
So, here’s a thought: are we, in the UK, going to spend the next five decades and more contesting mandatory vaccination, masks and ethylene oxide-laced nasal swabs, and allow ourselves to be selectively locked down, or our rights infringed upon, while we continue to declare that it is “MY BODY, MY CHOICE”?
Or, are we going to get ahead of the game, PROVE scientifically, once and for all, that the ASSUMPTIONS underlying such infringement of our rights are simply FALSE, and systematically force all governments around the world to OUTLAW medical mandates, FOREVER?
It has been put to me that “risk” shouldn’t have to come into the equation – we should have free choice over what goes into or onto our bodies, regardless. But consider this: once you have won the argument based on “where there is risk, there must be choice,” you can go on to say,
“BECAUSE you have implemented medical mandates based on false assumptions (and possibly lies), BECAUSE you have criminalised our thoughts and feelings for the best part of two years and counting, and BECAUSE you have allowed many people to be harmed by medical interventions they didn’t want, you should NEVER AGAIN be allowed to mandate ANY medical intervention, EVER.”
And the next step – an international treaty forbidding any nation, state or province from implementing or allowing medical mandates – would you lobby for this?
See us in court?
If you want to see matters like these in the courts, you can help by donating. We already have a wealth of evidence and are working to build our legal case against unlawful Covid measures. We may end up bringing more than one case now that unlawful medical mandates are sweeping our nation.
Your Views Please!
The above are only my thoughts and views, not shared by everybody. So I’d welcome your thoughts and comments please! With open discussion we can move this train forward speedily to its destination!