Goodbye and good riddance to Public Health England.
All these public health organisations are essentially coercive, for the simple reason that they intrude upon individual autonomy. My health is no longer my concern alone, but the concern of an organisation that claims to know better than I do what’s good for me.
One of the results of this, of course, are smoking bans. Alcohol prohibition in the USA was another. So also are various drug prohibitions. Covid vaccination mandates are just the latest example.
It’s inevitable when some people think they know what’s good for everyone else. It’s why we’re now living in a medical tyranny. What you think doesn’t matter: only the experts get a hearing.
There are many sorts of public works which increase people’s freedom without invading their autonomy. Roads and bridges are good examples. You don’t have to use them if you don’t want to.
The same applies to wind farms or solar farms when added to other forms of energy. But banning cars or internal combustion engines removes freedom, by forcing people to use only officially-approved forms of energy. Same with banning burning coal or wood.
All bans are coercive. And people will always resist coercion. Which is why I expect a public revolt against the bullies in Public Health.
Unfortunately Public Health England is to be replaced by the equally Orwellian Office for Health Promotion and Disparities.
How are they going to deal with health “disparities? With the fact that some people are healthier and more long-lived than others? One obvious solution would be to have a mandatory maximum lifetime of 65 or 70 years, and prevent people from “unfairly” living to the age of 80 or 90, by denying healthcare to anyone over the mandatory maximum age. All in the name of “equality”. Where else can the pursuit of equality lead?
We should be glad of inequality. We should be glad that we are all different sizes and shapes and colours. Inequality is the measure of our freedom.
What is the war on obesity but the demonisation of large people? What does “overweight” mean other than the idolisation of some arbitrary ideal weight? I myself have always been “underweight”. We should accept people as they are, not bully them to conform to some ideal. We should seek the greatest diversity rather than the greatest uniformity.
Discredited population eugenics theory, interfering in the doctor-patient relationship with collectivist absolutist “one risk profile fits all” diktats, openly hostile to individual choice.
The Orstrayan national daily published my comment below on their site (response to a news item about imposing compulsory vaccination). Ignorance of or contempt for the law would seem to call into question one’s suitability to be a highly paid legislator, suffering no adverse consequences for delusional damaging decisions based in the illusion of control over the natural environment, and deluded belief in stubbornly repeating and doubling down on the same disastrous policies.
S51xxiiiA of the Constitution effectively prohibits any compulsory medical treatment including vaccination, and equality before the law cannot be cancelled by statute. Any law interfering in the doctor-patient relationship and the right of informed consent is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional, although that is yet to be tested in relation to government imposed CV19 restrictions and diktats.
Further, the definition of “disability” in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) is “organisms capable of causing disease or illness”. The Act does not distinguish between pathogens, and prohibits discrimination against a person with a disability in relation to employment, education, access to public premises, accommodation, the sale of land, membership of clubs, and participation in sporting activities. Seeking information about a disability in order to discriminate is also prohibited. The Act exempts discrimination “reasonably necessary to protect public health” where a person’s disability is an “infectious disease”, although being unvaccinated is not being infectious, even if the fearful believe that, it’s just being unvaccinated, so the exemption cannot apply based solely on vaccination status.
Commonwealth law takes precedence over State law to the extent of any inconsistency. The proponents of mandatory vaccination including vaccine passports and threats or inducements to undergo vaccination would appear to benefit from additional instruction upon the relevant legal provisions, and inalienable rights unable to be cancelled on the whim of politicians, risk averse bureaucrats, and businesses supporting such unethical authoritarian intrusion as they struggle to survive.
In the US , they’ve already started dealing with “inequality” (which they only see in terms of race) by prioritizing care of the currently favored race over the other. There’s also been a movement to not just prioritize the care of the vaccinate over the un, but to actively deny care to the unvaccinated. In the name of equality, they would impose a rigid inequality as decided by currently popular vs unpopular status.
Undercover journalists talking with Pfizer people.
Press View to see the video, 9:59 minutes.
I thought this was quite touching in places, and noted how the volunteers take smoking breaks!
I just watched it on “live” TV here, and on searching for it found it was from Dec 2020!
Nevertheless, if you have 24 minutes to spare,