We understand that a House of Commons debate has taken place on the subject of vaccine passports. This has been available live on a number of sources including, but not limited to, the BBC website. However, the YouTube video can be accessed here at the time of writing. I have downloaded this in case it is ever taken down.
The responses from Steve Baker and Ian Paisley Jr, amongst other MPs, are welcome and varying sections of their speeches do share common ground with the cause and purpose of HandsFaceGrace as a whole. Vaccines are a major milestone in the development of human society and medical services, and may have held substantial influence to curb the transmission of other viruses including smallpox and measles — alongside improved hygiene systems and knowledge of proper nutrition. By the same token it is extremely harmful to our society even to contemplate ever making any aspect of vaccines agressively promoted, or mandatory to engage in any particular activity or to travel to or from a given location. Any law, directly or de-facto, to that effect would be the death knell of informed consent. It would intensify the ‘us and them’ society that masks have gracelessly set the stage for, massively scale up police and big-tech surveillance, and impose crippling barriers on the needs and desires of the elderly, disabled and poor.
On the other hand, we are saddened greatly by Mike Hill and John Spellar and hope prayerfully that they (and any others who enthuse or otherwise support or condone any aspect of vaccine ID) will change their hearts and minds before it is too late. Passports never made their hideous debut in the 2009-10 Swine Flu pandemic so we know it is perfectly possible to conduct our lives and businesses without fear and in absence of them. The recurring subject in both of their speeches though would be the mention of how so many airlines, hospitality and sports venues etc are struggling and vaccine certs would be the way to ensure people have the confidence to return, and in the case of wanting to go to a country where entry is conditional on being vaccinated, have the means to do so. This is patently untrue and will, at least in the long-term and probably even in the short-term, achieve the polar opposite. The blog post before the last one sets out how I, the founder, am not prepared to accept the experience of dining out or having a night at the movies on the condition of hurtful demands such as mask wearing and inability to exchange conventional cash.
I have made the conscious and carefully considered decision in honest and good faith not to undergo any of the prescribed vaccination regimes against coronavirus; be it AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sputnik V or otherwise. This will remain the case for the foreseeable future as I have strong reservations on too many grounds. We have no evidence on the full implications of long-term adverse events, and cannot possibly accumulate any articles to that effect for three to five years at a bare minimum. The dangers of rushing through development are multiplied by the use of experimental mRNA technology, which has never been found in a commercial product, at least where AstraZeneca and Pfizer are concerned. Stages of testing, including that on animals, have been arbitrarily skipped out. There is clear evidence that numerous coronavirus vaccination schemes have caused deaths and injuries (already there is a laundry list of them), and yet some ‘vaccines’ cannot even reduce the probability of you contracting the virus or of you transmitting it to someone else.
Ultimately, if you are a freely consenting adult, you may weigh up the benefits and risks of taking the vaccine and decide for yourself. I would, at least personally however, strongly object to any child taking such a strongly unknown substance. The risk of mortality for them is statistically zero for this virus, and the WHO could not find a single case of transmission from a child under 10 to an adult. This is conclusive evidence that COVID vaccination is not the right path for anyone under 16 and will simply cause them unnecessary harm.
In other news the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has caught the attention of parliament and is due to receive its second reading in the Commons this week. First of all the use of nebulous legal tests, such as whether a person is causing ‘serious annoyance’ as in Clause 59, hands more power to the government to brutally crack down on oftentimes good-faith protests. The added threat of ten years behind bars on assessment of this criteria is disproportionate and power-hungry. Start and end times and noise limits have all the potential to be deployed abusively, as we have seen repeatedly with the lockdowns and mask laws, and for those reasons I would be against the proposed bill.