why no individual can be subjected to forced inoculation to allegedly protect the public


Fine.

1.

As long as it can be proven beyond Reasonable Doubt that it is only the uninjected whom can spread the infection; produce killer variants; and that taking the injection will make it impossible for him to spread the infection or get infected by it. 

And if all of the above can be proven beyond Reasonable Doubt, that means there is no reason for the individual to take it as those whom took it will be completely protected. 

2.

It must also be proven beyond Reasonable Doubt that this measure cannot kill or maim anyone as all lives are equal in value before the law and there is no reason for one to be subjected to possible harm or death to save another. To deny this is to subject the entire public this measure purports to protect to possible death to save their lives, which is a contradiction in terms, and which reveal such an exercise as heinous in nature by consequence, if not in intent, and may thus be deemed an Act of Terrorism requiring immediate action to put down the threat by any party available to do so and be any means necessary to reinstate the safety of the public.

3.

Finally, it must also be proven beyond Reasonable Doubt that such forced treatment cannot be used as a pretext to injure or kill people. If this cannot be proven to not be the case beyond Reasonable Doubt, then the imposition of such an order is tantamount to premeditated grievous bodily harm and murder, genocidal terrorism, and treason.  In such a case, the people can utilise their natural Right to Self-defence and remove such a threat to their lives immediately and permanently by any means necessary to effect it so as to protect the public health.

edX

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Chinglish, not Singlish.

Image
Ever wonder how 'singlish' sounds so much like the way a chinese child speaks - like that child on the left?  Not like a malay child, not like an indian child.  The next time you speak 'singlish', just ask yourself how different it is from that little boy on the left. That indicates that 'singlish' is not actually 'singlish', but 'chinglish'.  And this further indicates that the formation of this so-called colloquial and unofficial ‘national’ language indicates that non-chinese differences were not considered in its formation, which, incidentally, parallels the chinese-determined criteria of what alright and not alright in all other arenas.   No wonder that the msn.com site for singapore is called ‘xin.msn.com’.  If it is representative of anything, it is only of post-80s chinese self-absorption.  Same goes for the ‘wit‘ which is typical of the wit in Chinese media and conversations.  Childish, and has no resemblance with the higher level
Read more

Singaporeans upset about Indonesian naming ships after their ‘heroes’? Why?

Image
Indonesian military officers have pulled out of a Singapore aerospace show amid a row over the controversial naming of a naval warship. Indonesia angered its neighbour by naming the new ship after two marines who carried out a bombing which killed three people in Singapore in 1965. Singapore's second minister for defence said he was "disappointed" with Indonesia's naming decision. Jakarta defended the move saying it was customary to name vessels after heroes. - bbc In conversation, Ed: I don't see what the fuss is about. The chinese fascist government of singapore had no problem erecting a statue of mass-murdering chinese premiere, Deng Xiao Ping in singapore. And anyway, the attack was on Malaysia, not singapore - as singapore was a part of Malaysia then. So this issue is actually a non-issue. The singapore government is just trying to flex its paltry muscles regionally. Silly fellas. Kelvin Leong: while I may not agree 100% with the way my government handled t
Read more

Singapore’s Racist ‘Meritocracy’

Image
Meritocracy. To the common mind, it simply means going by how one scores in exams. That’s it. But that’s not it. Meritocracy goes deeper than simple educational achievement. It has much to do with an overarching ‘system of preference’ that is promoted via a host of means. Of course one can say that we ‘prefer’ those with higher scores. But this sort of ‘preference’ is embedded within an overarching ‘system of preference’ that impacts on how we perceive ourselves, each other, and what we are taught to view as the right way of thinking and doing things. It is this that truly reveals what any particular ‘meritocratic’ system entails. For instance, back in the 70s and 80s, there was a common perception that manufacturing was a ‘chinese thing’; that Indians make good lawyers; or that Malays are great at song and dance. We saw lots of Malays being taken into Civil Defence, whilst I saw quite a few of my Indian friends going into Infantry or Guardsmen. This sort of perception or practi
Read more