Vaccine Passport Enforcement Delayed

[Darth Bear 15,091]

2 hours ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

No. The so called human rights act as written into eu and uk law does not actually, wait for it, protect human rights as evidenced by the vaccine passport shite going on. U agree with that? It protects the rights of criminals and terrorists. Not the law abiding citizen.

So you basically mean the human rights in your own head?

 

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861]

1 hour ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

This would be a valid stance if the vaccine passports infringed on your human rights, but that is subjective.

I don't actually think it does. Others will think it will.

There will be people who are absolutely crazy about 'their rights' whilst also agreeing things like capital punishment who others would be aghast at in terms of human rights.

To be honest, I don't think the passports are worth it. Evidence actually indicates they are counter productive in driving up vaccine hesitancy, so basically fail at what they are aiming to do.

People should be getting the vaccine if they are advised to do so, but ultimately it is their choice. I am fine with 'encouraging' that choice, but it has to be based on the encouragement working. I don't think the passports will actually do that.

Also the SNP could organise a piss up in a brewery so it was bound to be an absolute shit show.

A government interfering with whether you can go about your lawful business and victimising / discriminating against a minority and you don't think that is against human rights? Seriously?

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861]

Article 5, article 11 and article 14. If peoples ability to go to a fucking entertainment venue is not covered then as I say the laws are not there to protect normal people.

[ForeverAndEver 71,374]

14 hours ago, Wearethepeople72 said:

Wishful thinking but I’ll be continuing to go and won’t be taking a clot shot.

 

8 hours ago, Wearethepeople72 said:

True, you probably have BBC news on one screen and STV news on the other to give you covid information. 

Rather listen to the BBC/STV than the shite you’re listening to or reading, clot shot 😂😂

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

3 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

A government interfering with whether you can go about your lawful business and victimising / discriminating against a minority and you don't think that is against human rights? Seriously?

I don't really think it is that though.

Firstly, if they bring in a law stating that it is not legal, then it would not be lawful business.

If for instance they were to introduce a law to affirm our values as a Christian country and not allow anything to be bought or sold on a Sunday, this would interfere with all the same things you say, but would not be against human rights. It would obviously not happen, but it still fits the same criteria as you lay out.

It also does not fit the criteria for being classes as legal discrimination, so the "minority" angle does not really hold legal weight. I would agree if they included people who could not be vaccinated, but these people are excluded.

I don't agree with the vaccine passports, as I don't think they will actually increase the numbers taking the vaccine. I don't however think that they are against human rights.

[Wearethepeople72 1,845]

13 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

 

Rather listen to the BBC/STV than the shite you’re listening to or reading, clot shot 😂😂

So the vaccines haven’t caused blood clots in people? Am I wrong? 😂

[ForeverAndEver 71,374]

5 minutes ago, Wearethepeople72 said:

So the vaccines haven’t caused blood clots in people? Am I wrong? 😂

Many deaths has alcohol caused? Still take that risk 🐑🐑

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

6 minutes ago, Wearethepeople72 said:

So the vaccines haven’t caused blood clots in people? Am I wrong? 😂

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-08-27-covid-19-not-vaccination-presents-biggest-blood-clot-risks

Becoming infected with Covid is a far higher risk for blood clots than getting any of the vaccines.

The risk is higher still if you get a serious infection, which the vaccine is likely to prevent.

[Wearethepeople72 1,845]

5 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

Many deaths has alcohol caused? Still take that risk 🐑🐑

The risks with alcohol are known, the long term effects of the vaccine aren’t. 

[Malkytfp1 18,579]

10 minutes ago, Wearethepeople72 said:

So the vaccines haven’t caused blood clots in people? Am I wrong? 😂

Do you know how many blood clots are caused by the flu jab or contraceptive pills? Blood clots in covid jags are very low. How many people do you know who are vaccinated and how many of them have had a clot? 

[Wearethepeople72 1,845]

1 minute ago, Malkytfp1 said:

Do you know how many blood clots are caused by the flu jab or contraceptive pills? Blood clots in covid jags are very low. How many people do you know who are vaccinated and how many of them have had a clot? 

Don’t know of any, but same applies with deaths from covid.

Btw, I was partly at the wind up…

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861]

52 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

I don't really think it is that though.

Firstly, if they bring in a law stating that it is not legal, then it would not be lawful business.

If for instance they were to introduce a law to affirm our values as a Christian country and not allow anything to be bought or sold on a Sunday, this would interfere with all the same things you say, but would not be against human rights. It would obviously not happen, but it still fits the same criteria as you lay out.

It also does not fit the criteria for being classes as legal discrimination, so the "minority" angle does not really hold legal weight. I would agree if they included people who could not be vaccinated, but these people are excluded.

I don't agree with the vaccine passports, as I don't think they will actually increase the numbers taking the vaccine. I don't however think that they are against human rights.

See, you are paying far to much attention to laws. Can laws be just or unjust? I would argue yes, they can be either. If it were Jews that were prohibited from going to the football instead of people that saw the vaccine/ doing what you want as a risk to their personal health, would you say that was just? 

I take it you agree that laws can change? What is just in natural law however is much less mutable. 

For the law to be sacrosanct and to be absolutely flawless, u have to believe that those that make the law is flawless. So tell me , is sturgeon flawless?

Now laws are important. Bur a key tenant has always been they do not discriminate. They guide people's behaviour while causing no harm to them. Covid passports break those.

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861]

53 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

I don't really think it is that though.

Firstly, if they bring in a law stating that it is not legal, then it would not be lawful business.

If for instance they were to introduce a law to affirm our values as a Christian country and not allow anything to be bought or sold on a Sunday, this would interfere with all the same things you say, but would not be against human rights. It would obviously not happen, but it still fits the same criteria as you lay out.

It also does not fit the criteria for being classes as legal discrimination, so the "minority" angle does not really hold legal weight. I would agree if they included people who could not be vaccinated, but these people are excluded.

I don't agree with the vaccine passports, as I don't think they will actually increase the numbers taking the vaccine. I don't however think that they are against human rights.

Also, tell me. Do you agree with the statements that man's prime reason for existing is the pursuit of individual life,love and happiness? Any law that unreasonably curtails that is wrong?

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

22 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

See, you are paying far to much attention to laws. Can laws be just or unjust? I would argue yes, they can be either. If it were Jews that were prohibited from going to the football instead of people that saw the vaccine/ doing what you want as a risk to their personal health, would you say that was just? 

I take it you agree that laws can change? What is just in natural law however is much less mutable. 

For the law to be sacrosanct and to be absolutely flawless, u have to believe that those that make the law is flawless. So tell me , is sturgeon flawless?

Now laws are important. Bur a key tenant has always been they do not discriminate. They guide people's behaviour while causing no harm to them. Covid passports break those.

Laws are basically a dictation of your societies views, certainly in a democracy.

You can agree with them or not, but if you are part of that society then you have to abide by them.

I think it abhorrent that laws in some countries allow for people to be executed by their state.

I also find it ridiculous that some people "sovereign citizens" for example think that their rights are infringed for having to have a driving licence to use a motor vehicle on a public roadway. Just because they think their rights are being infringed does not mean they are.

On your final point, laws have often discriminated, see retirement age. Drinking age etc. They are now coming more in line. But regardless, on Covid passports I disagree that it breaks 'human rights'. Children have the same human rights as adults, but we can stop them drinking alcohol. Drinking alcohol to me is not a human right for all. Getting into a nightclub or a football ground is also not a human right.

Human rights are things like access to food and water.

Freedom to follow a religion, although I could happily be persuaded against this one.

Access to shelter.

Access to medical treatment.

These are fundamental human rights. 

[MisterC 12,263]

Once again a covid related thread has turned into a wider debate with the usual pish. Go to the current affairs section if you want to discuss the wider picture etc....

As the thread has gone way off topic and no longer relevant to the football, its goodnight Vienna to this thread