Anti-Mandate Task Force: What we’ve learned
Post Meeting 24 May 2021
Dear Task Force!
If you were there Monday May 24th, here are the big issues that I think were of primary concern:
- How ones choice to NOT vaccinate means giving up a lot of aspects of a normal life, in particular theatre and travel (Airlines are at the mercy of the FAA which has been imposing all the various mandates). In some cases, our friends and family refuse to associate with non-vaccinated, out of concern for themselves or for us.
- How issues related to mandates are not only reminiscent of communist countries but echo anti-freedom policies and restrictions
- That our freedom to even talk about any of this – statistics about the virus, about treatments, about the vaccines, and about mandates – is curtailed – again, not dissimilar to communist countries where the narrative is tightly controlled and dissenting voices are silenced, one way or another
- The requirement by employers for an employee to be vaccinated – OSHA flip-flopped on how an employer who mandates and experimental vaccine could be liable for any injury; they no longer are deemed liable by OSHA (but may still) More from OSHA here
- The requirement for students, children, anybody, to be vaccinated – how constitutional is it, and how constitutional is a passport?
- The extent to which fear plays a major role in all this – statistics even show that the most fearful are those already vaccinated, not entirely surprising – and how despite the removal of mask mandates people continue to choose to be masked
- How it may well not be government mandating anything (a legal issue that they might not win) but businesses, who have far greater legal protection, may choose to require employees to be vaccinated and patrons etc to show proof of vaccination, which is legally within their rights as it stands currently. Which means, apply pressure on private businesses to choose to NOT require vaccinations etc. Boycott the anti-freedom businesses, buycott the pro-freedom ones. More below.
- There’s a lot of ignorance out there, about the “vaccines,” the virus, treatments etc. News media and social media have been all-too-effective in suppressing the truth and pushing the propaganda – **N.B James O’Keefe’s latest
Other things we learned
- The issue of religious exemption is complicated
So it seems that, while one may refuse on the grounds of a “sincerely held religious belief,” employers at least have no real requirement to accommodate you if they choose not to.
In addition, it seems that for children, CA is one of the very few states that have no “religious exemption” for vaccines.
- The topic of Nuremberg Code came up: these relate to the post-Nazi era ruling in Nuremberg that informed consent is mandatory. From the code:
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.
- Very comprehensive from the New England Journal of Medicine Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code | NEJM
- From the Washington Standard
- BUT, the Nuremberg Code (nor the subsequent Declaration of Helsinki) is not codified in law and is therefore unenforceable. See below for information on other health codes.
- As was pointed out, an effective slogan for our efforts might be: INFORMED consent, not MISINFORMED consent, as all factual information is systematically withheld in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code
- Ivermectin is a cheap and accessible prophylactic against COVID, as are HCQ and Quercetin which, taken with Zinc, help to make cells more open to the Zinc. And the very fact that this has been suppressed is just another of countless indicators of how health is not at the forefront of any of these measures.
- HIPAA does not protect one from being asked about vaccine status.
“The reason is simple: HIPAA provides all of us with assurance that our health care providers – doctors, dentists, nurses, psychologists, and more – as well as our health care insurers, will respect our privacy by not revealing information about our health without our knowledge and consent,” …
“HIPAA does not prohibit businesses or employers from requesting health information, including information about vaccination status.” Can businesses ask proof of COVID-19 vaccination? Experts explain HIPAA (msn.com)
Some conclusions and further information and considerations:
- While those on both sides of the political spectrum do get vaccinated for various reasons, concern over a mandate falls squarely on the pro-freedom, pro-liberty side. This also translates to how the red state-blue state divide will deepen over this issue. The governors of Florida and, just today, Georgia, have prohibited discrimination based on vaccine status (COVID-19 vaccine passports prohibited by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp | 11alive.com)
- Interestingly, while California as a deep blue state most likely won’t pass any such prohibition, we do have California Civil Code 51. From Unruh Civil Rights Act: California Civil Code 51 and 52 | KAASS LAW:
California Civil Code Section 51(b) defines the regulations under the Unruh Civil Rights Act:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically indicates discrimination based on “sex, race, religion, age, color, national origin, ancestry, medical condition, disability, marital status, genetic information or sexual orientation”, the California Supreme Court has held, that protections under the Act are not only necessarily limited to the mentioned characteristics.
The Unruh Act includes all intentional and arbitrary discrimination by a business establishment based on personal characteristics related to the above mentioned ones.
It seems likely then that California does protect from discrimination those who choose to be unvaccinated. This includes employer mandates, venue mandates such as the Improv which will only admit the vaccinated, venue segregation such as the Hollywood Bowl which has divided allocated 85% of the seats to the vaccinated and the rest to those deemed unclean.
But as we have learned, things are not always as they seem and as I have been told by lawyers, it “depends on who is doing the interpreting.” This seems a clear avenue to pursue in our efforts, however. More below.
- Whether or not CA Civil Code 51 will be applicable (and not subverted by a subsequent code), and regarding other blue states without such a Code, and if discrimination based on vaccine status is in fact permitted, it appears that the main promulgators of such discrimination, at the basic civic level, will be businesses, schools, venues etc which have the option to succumb to fear, preferring to lead with “protecting their employees and customers” by requiring the vaccine, or, by contrast, preferring to default to the old normal and make no such requirement. What this means is that we should do what we can to influence businesses’ cost-benefit calculus and push it towards catering more towards FREEDOM rather than mandate/tyranny/anti-American view of the world. More on this below
- Fear seems to be the greatest impediment to being able to eschew the vaccine. Family and friends refuse to be around the un-vaxxed, contractors refuse to work in homes where residents are unvaccinated, or the converse: people refuse to hire contractors who aren’t vaccinated. The terror has been so effectively sown that people feel that it’s their duty to themselves and their families to not associate with the “unclean” despite all the data, and the actual facts regarding any risks associated with the vaccines are effectively suppressed. People continuing to wear masks outside, alone, are a good indicator of this irrational fear, and the psychological damage this past year has done can’t be underestimated, and will play a role regarding vaccine mandates
- A vaccine mandate is only the beginning, and tracking it is only the beginning of required monitoring; this is why this must be stopped right here, right now. If they can mandate a vaccine for a minimally lethal disease that predominantly only targets specific characteristics, and for which a number of treatments are available, then what won’t they mandate? And if they require a “passport” or some kind of tech-based app indicating ones vax status, what won’t they then put on the app next, “for our safety and the safety of our community?” It will never end.
- This also would be the capstone to the death of science. It’s been in its death throes for a while now, but this would truly be the capstone. While the science behind the vaccines is interesting, in all other aspects this (the response to the virus) has been as anti-science as one could imagine, and yet we’re being made to change everything about our lives because of it. The depth and breadth of destruction is unfathomable, both on the societal-global scale and the personal, psychological and sociological one.
What do we do? Click here for what comes next.