Govt departments have been told to push the message ‘the vaccine is your choice’

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
39,931
Just for information:

SA Constitution
Bill of Rights

Section 12 Freedom and security of the person

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right –
(a) not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause;
(b) not to be detained without trial;
(c) to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;
(d) not to be tortured in any way; and
(e) not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.
(2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right –
(a) to make decisions concerning reproduction;
(b) to security in and control over their body; and
(c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.
But no one's infringing on any of the bolded parts (which I assume you think is the case).
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,950
I do think unvaccinated can't be allowed to run amok, get sick and place unnecessary burdens and risk people who are at risk of severe disease and death.
why? those at risk people also had the chance of getting vaccinated ... the vaccine protects them ... right?
 

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
39,931
why? those at risk people also had the chance of getting vaccinated ... the vaccine protects them ... right?
The state can't just say you die you die just because you had a fair chance and offer to vaccinate. A lot of the at risk are refusing for various ridiculous reasons. It's not just the healthy Rambos who are refusing.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
25,994
But no one's infringing on any of the bolded parts (which I assume you think is the case).
Your assumption is incorrect and misplaced. The highlight draws attention to the relevant paragraph. What it means exactly is not yet decided by the courts.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,950
A lot of the at risk are refusing for various ridiculous reasons
and who's problem is that? theirs and theirs alone

you would rather the state force people against their will to be vaccinated than let those who don't want to be vaccinated have their 2% chance of dying?!?

that's bizarre in the extreme
 

jbrunevader

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
160
If anyone talks about the validity of mandates, point them to the Nuremburg Code, specifically point 1:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

i.e. these ethical rules were prescribed in response to what the Nazis did in WW2. If any government, business or individual today is insisting on mandated vaccinations then they should be directed to this code; and on principle denied that which is far too easily exploitable for political and / or other reasons; to avoid any of the style of atrocities committed by the Nazis during WW2.

What may appear OK today; may be classified as a human rights abuse tomorrow -- the only way to avoid that is to always give every person the absolute right to say NO.
 

netstrider

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
2,888
Vaccinate or don't vaccinate.

Your choice and my choice. I won't force mine unto you and I expect the same in return.

"Be and let be".

Many people have lost many. Many have lost none.

Some families eat crap, others not. Some get sick often, others very rarely.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
59,620
If anyone talks about the validity of mandates, point them to the Nuremburg Code, specifically point 1:


i.e. these ethical rules were prescribed in response to what the Nazis did in WW2. If any government, business or individual today is insisting on mandated vaccinations then they should be directed to this code; and on principle denied that which is far too easily exploitable for political and / or other reasons; to avoid any of the style of atrocities committed by the Nazis during WW2.

What may appear OK today; may be classified as a human rights abuse tomorrow -- the only way to avoid that is to always give every person the absolute right to say NO.

That must be the quickest return to the forum since Eks in his early days.

1634163627157.jpeg
 

jbrunevader

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
160
That must be the quickest return to the forum since Eks in his early days.

View attachment 1166636
 
Last edited:

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
59,620

Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,855
I think everyone should have access to these vaccines if they want them, but forcing it on someone without consent is unethical.

Seems we still have government-associated groups pushing mandatory vaccination:


And it's still unclear whether the government will try push mandatory vaccination:


We also have universities pushing mandatory vaccination, a violation of the rights of students to consent (and saying "well don't go to university then" is not an acceptable response, everyone should have a right to attend educational institutions, this is not Apartheid where we just change the "Whites only" signs to "Vaccinated only"):


It's of questionable epidemiological value; new data seems to increasingly show (and the CDC director admitted recently) vaccines aren't really stopping transmission anymore. Also students are mostly of an age that is at low risk from Covid-19.

Also, Discovery's actuaries estimate ~80% of South Africa's population already had Covid-19 - if that's true, most the population probably already have some form of immunity. So why the urgency by bodies like B4SA to try turn SA into a dictatorship?

The virus also has a relatively low CFR (likely under 0.2%)

And the reality is we don't yet have long-term data on these vaccines. To try make every human being take it seems alarmingly foolish (there may be other long-term negative effects we're not yet aware of, we don't yet know), especially as the CFR is low, they don't stop transmission, and most the population probably already have some form of natural immunity. (I know some people are very frightened of Covid-19, but at the same time there are valid reasons it normally takes years to decades of proper testing for approval of new drugs/vaccines, e.g. see Thalidomide - still, the vaccine should be a choice, if people want to take it they're welcome to)


"give every person the absolute right to say NO."

Agree. But one point, on that word "give": Everyone has the right to say no, nobody "gives" you that right, you have the right, you can never lose that right, nobody can take it away. They can only violate your right, or respect it. Even if they made compulsory vaccination a new law, you would not lose that right - that law would just violate your inalienable rights. You never lose the right.
 

Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,855
The Nuremberg Code isn't a law and even if it were it isn't applicable.

Every human being in the world has an inalienable right to consent over their body.

It's a basic human right. Every human being has that right. Look up what "inalienable" means.

Any law that compels vaccination even under mere duress violates this inalienable right of consent.

It would be a human rights violation anywhere, whether in South Africa, or anywhere else.

The HUMAN RIGHTS falling under the principles of the Nuremberg Code belong to everyone on this forum, to every South African, to every human being in the world.

From a basic human rights perspective, the Nuremberg Code applies to every person in the world. If you compel vaccination (even under duress) you are violating someone else's basic right to consent over their body.

Nobody can take away those rights. Even a law compelling vaccination in any way would be violating these rights. Lays may either violate such rights, or protect such rights, but cannot "grant" or "remove" them. Just like slavery would be a human rights violation whether legal or not.

Even mere duress is a violation of consent. Consider, for example, if a boss said to an employee "have sex with me or you're fired", or if a university dean said to a student "have sex with me or I'll have you kicked out the university", if the person agreed to have sex under such duress, would that constitute true consent? No. Same with medications and vaccines.

"The law" doesn't define what's ethical or not, the law doesn't define what is a human rights violation or not - recall that everything the Apartheid government did, was law. Everything the Nazis did, was legal in Germany.

But we believed as a society so strongly in the principles of the Nuremberg Code that we executed those who violated it. Those are our principles as a just society believing in human rights and grounded in human rights.

Violations of the principles of the Nuremberg Code should be treated the way we treat other mass-violations of natural human rights, e.g. some sort of new 'Nuremberg Trials'. And never-ending mass civil protest.
 
Last edited:

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
21,277
I think everyone should have access to these vaccines if they want them, but forcing it on someone without consent is unethical.

Seems we still have government-associated groups pushing mandatory vaccination:


And it's still unclear whether the government will try push mandatory vaccination:


We also have universities pushing mandatory vaccination, a violation of the rights of students to consent (and saying "well don't go to university then" is not an acceptable response, everyone should have a right to attend educational institutions, this is not Apartheid where we just change the "Whites only" signs to "Vaccinated only"):


It's of questionable epidemiological value; new data seems to increasingly show (and the CDC director admitted recently) vaccines aren't really stopping transmission anymore. Also students are mostly of an age that is at low risk from Covid-19.

Also, Discovery's actuaries estimate ~80% of South Africa's population already had Covid-19 - if that's true, most the population probably already have some form of immunity. So why the urgency by bodies like B4SA to try turn SA into a dictatorship?
They should either make it mandatory or have a clear policy that prevents discrimination based on vaccination status. Much better than the current situation where they pretend it isn't mandatory, but allow coercion that effectively makes it mandatory for many people.

If it is about protecting people then they also cannot keep pretending that infection induced immunity doesn't exist. It makes no sense to persist in trying to downplay this immunity. It's certainly unfair discrimination to deprive someone of employment, etc. because they have immunity without getting vaccinated.
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
21,277
Every human being on the planet has an inalienable right to consent over their body.
Laws in every country on earth and international agreements already show that no-one has an inalienable right to consent over their body, and this precedent goes back many decades. I have no doubt at all that many of those now claiming the right to control over their body were enthusiastic supporters of such laws.

The Nuremberg Code applies to every human being in the world. If you compel vaccination (even under duress) you are violating someone else's basic right to consent over their body.
It doesn't apply to mandating vaccines, medications or anything similar. It has a very specific, narrow focus which has nothing at all to do with the current circumstances. However even it did it is a guideline, not an enforceable law. So it is pointless for people to keep bringing it up.

Even mere duress is a violation of consent. Consider, for example, if a boss said to an employee "have sex with me or you're fired", or if a university dean said to a student "have sex with me or I'll have you kicked out the university", if the person agreed to have sex under such duress, would that constitute true consent? No. Same with medications and vaccines.
It would be duress, but the Nuremberg Code has nothing at all to say about forcing treatments on unwilling recipients. Forcing treatments on people was not what the Nazis were doing.

"The law" doesn't define what's ethical or not, the law doesn't define what is a human rights violation or not - recall that everything the Apartheid government did, was law. Everything the Nazis did, was legal in Germany. But we believed as a society so strongly in the principles of the Nuremberg Code that we executed those who violated it. Those are our principles as a just society believing in human rights and grounded in human rights.
The point is that even if the Nuremberg Code were applicable it isn't going to be a defence against mandatory vaccination. Everyone can violate the code to their heart's content with absolute impunity unless there happens to be a local law that implements the code's guidelines. Now in fact most countries have such laws, but they are written based on the code's narrow, specific purpose, which doesn't include forcing medical treatment on people.
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
21,277
Just for information:

SA Constitution
Bill of Rights

Section 12 Freedom and security of the person

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right –
(a) not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause;
(b) not to be detained without trial;
(c) to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;
(d) not to be tortured in any way; and
(e) not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.
(2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right –
(a) to make decisions concerning reproduction;
(b) to security in and control over their body; and
(c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.
Like pretty much all countries on earth South Africa already has longstanding laws that violate 1a and 2b. Hell conservatives, who are commonly those attacking the vaccines and claiming the right to control over their bodies, have a long history of being at the forefront of vigorously and viciously denying people the right to decide what goes into their bodies.

Since the vaccines are not medical or scientific experiments making them mandatory would not violate 2c.
 

jbrunevader

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
160
And that's just how it is - everybody has the absolute right to say no.
You haven't been watching much news lately? Those who e.g. previously said there never would be any mandates are today enforcing mandates even though this means that large amounts of the workforce will be fired simply for exercising that right.

I guess you also missed this:
 

Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,855
Italy are now also forcing/coercing vaccination, and there are massive protests:


Respect to these protesters for actually standing up for their basic rights instead of allowing themselves to be doormats for tyrants.

Funny how the media keep quiet about the protests going on in France, Australia, Israel, US, Lithuania and many other nations attempting to implement these Communist-like restrictions on inalienable liberties, as if they don't want you to be aware that millions of others are not simply going along with this all over the world. I hope we see massive endless disruptive crippling protests in South Africa too (So-called "passport", as if you need a "permit" to exercise basic human rights like freedom of movement or right to work. You don't need a permit, you don't need to be vaccinated, it's not a condition of ANY of your inalienable liberties.)

The Nuremberg Code is absolutely applicable. It is a basic, inalienable right of every human being in the world to be able to decide for themselves over their own body if anything medical is performed on their body. Even mere duress (e.g. "restrictions") violate consent.

E.g. if a boss tells his employee "have sex with me or you're fired", and the employee agrees to have sex, we all agree that is not consent.

Likewise, holding your inalienable rights hostage - e.g. saying you are not going to be allowed full freedom of movement (a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT in South Africa) unless you have some medical injection, is a VIOLATION of consent, a violation of the Nuremberg Code, a violation of our Constitution, a violation of human rights in absolute terms anywhere in the world, and anybody subjecting others to such human rights violations should be subjected to international criminal trials for human rights violations.
 
Last edited:
Top