Society/Culture Anti-Lockdown Protesters: Suddenly woke!

Remove this Banner Ad

I'm a long way from being a shrine is sacred sort of guy but this lot aren't reading the room if they think this will go down well.
ADF members currently force assigned for OP-COVID ASSIST in Melbourne changed into PT gear after their shifts and went to the Shrine to clean-up the garbage left by the rabble.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This is already happening.
If it isn't interesting now, why do you think it will become interesting?

Would you say you care more about the action of protesting, or the cause behind them?
It gets interesting when two groups join forces in a conspicuous, flashy juxtaposition that’ll make for great tv and a lot of confusion. I’m here for the drama.
 
if only the article identified the ACTUAL issue at hand being the UN freedom of movement and the UN freedom of gathering.

it is reasonable to breach these concept until everyone has had the "opportunity" to be vaccinated.


oh and discrimination is a broader concept than defined by the discrimination act.
That is probably fair call, but it is also a concept that can be invoked (sometimes by people in quite privileged positions) as a way to block legitimate comment or debate.
 
It's a poor article.

He's only a few lines in when he relies on a Cherry Picking fallacy. He claims the protected attributes are "largely traits that we cannot change". This overlooks attributes such as - employment activity, marital status, parental status, physical features, political belief, pregnancy, religious belief. They are all attributes which are illegal to discrimination against but that we can change.

Then he goes on to say that vaccine mandates apply to all, so we are in the field of indirect discrimination ie the protected attributes that he just introduced are irrelevant. He's all over the place!

Then he asserts that a “no jab, no entry” policy is almost certainly reasonable, because vaccines have been proven to reduce death, hospitalisation, illness and transmission for COVID-19.

No one is arguing any more that the vaccines for Covid-19 prevent transmission. Vaccinated people can get infected and can even be super spreaders. The vaccinated should have reduced risk of death, hospitalisation and illness regardless of whether they are infected from a vaccinated or non-vaccinated person So the policies that discriminate against the non-vaccinated for Covid-19 are not reasonable.

He also omits a big category from his list of caveats. What about people who have had Covid-19 then recovered? They are likely to have much better immunity than a vaccinated person.

He does not get into the practicalities of how businesses are supposed to enforce these rules.

Restaurant worker : excuse me customer. Are you double vaxxed? Or do you have a disability or allergy that prevents you getting vaxxed? Or did you have Covid-19 then recovered?

Customer : that's none of your ******* business!
Well argued.

I think you’re right on pretty much all of the points you’ve argued here, maybe with the exception of the paragraph that starts: “No one is arguing any more that the vaccines for Covid-19 prevent transmission”, but really that is quibbling.
 
Well argued.

I think you’re right on pretty much all of the points you’ve argued here, maybe with the exception of the paragraph that starts: “No one is arguing any more that the vaccines for Covid-19 prevent transmission”, but really that is quibbling.

Thanks. I worry that we are seeing the demonisation of people who are perfectly healthy.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top