‘Vaccine Passports’ are Despotic | Ben Armstrong
The inoculation of the vulnerable groups and subsequent end to the pandemic has seemingly failed to prevent the health-maniacs from giving up their control over people’s lives. The hot topic on everyone involved in political discussion at the moment are the so-called ‘vaccine passports’. At the beginning of February when this idea was first leaked by The Times, it was denied by the Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi who cited ‘discrimination’ and the notion that it should not be de-facto mandatory ‘through a passport’.
The days and weeks that passed on from the original leak saw the ‘international travel’ talk rapidly morph into talk of ’domestic vaccine passports’. This idea would involve an individual being required to display proof of vaccination in order to be granted entry to a pub, bar, restaurant or any other venue or event which would choose to take up such a policy. ‘Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile’ comes to mind.
Please take note of the word ‘political’ used at the start of this article – because ‘vaccine passports’ are not a health-based discussion. They are only a continuation of the control over our society the country has seemed to have grown so used to and are not based on any science whatsoever. They have nothing to do with health and only serve an agenda of segregation and discrimination. This is perhaps the most important of all because this fact should relegate this idea to the dustbin of extremist fringe irrelevancy.
The British Medical Journal acknowledged on April 1st that “adding vaccine passports to existing vaccine inequities results in a vaccine apartheid” going on to say that “members of marginalised groups, who are less likely to be vaccinated, are thereby more likely to be excluded from participation in everyday social life”.
Make no mistake, this crazy and segregationist idea that is being given legitimacy by our media and figures such as Tony Blair would be a royal disservice to everything we as a nation proudly stand for. We do not coerce people into receiving medical treatment, we do not exclude those from society for making an informed health decision on their own behalf and we certainly do not prevent people from being a part of society for doing so – this is the United Kingdom, not North Korea.
It would hand certain members of society a license to discriminate against those who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to have a vaccine and would be an insult to those who have fought to preserve our nation’s tradition of being a place of individuals exercising freedom of choice without discrimination or exclusion for doing so. Baroness Chakrabati rightly derided the government’s plans as “a tool for discrimination, bullying, corruption, and segregation”.
Sitting on the fence or choosing to ignore such an issue is simply unacceptable when taking into account the profound effects on people’s everyday lives and freedoms and the consequences that this decision would inevitably see in the future if taken.
For those of us who seek to preserve the torch of liberty, ready for the grip of our inheritors, there can only be one corner to stand in. The question is – will enough rise to the occasion?