Re: Vaccine ****ery
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:30 pm
His agent will fill out the form for him and "accidentally" tick the box which says he hasn't...
His agent will fill out the form for him and "accidentally" tick the box which says he hasn't...
Refugees often need to mislead on their forms. If they tell the truth they get kicked out. If they get caught not disclosing everything they get kicked out. Priti Patel dances for joy when she finds a refugee has misled. Are we also going to dance for joy?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:10 pmHow so?
He lied about his health on an application for a work visa. He's a very rich man and will be fine.
Depends. Are we talking about millionaire refugees who wanted to pop over for a few weeks, play some games, earn a few million then go home again, while undermining public health measures and messaging? Or real refugees?lpm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:41 pmRefugees often need to mislead on their forms. If they tell the truth they get kicked out. If they get caught not disclosing everything they get kicked out. Priti Patel dances for joy when she finds a refugee has misled. Are we also going to dance for joy?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:10 pmHow so?
He lied about his health on an application for a work visa. He's a very rich man and will be fine.
Obviously it's things like giving a SS concentration guard and a child rapist free legal counsel, rights to a fair trial and the full protection of law. We don't like it. We instinctively hate the lawyers who try to get them off the charges. But we know it's what should be done.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:08 pmI think historically we got justice for people we like by fighting for it deliberately. Slavery wad abolished because of slave revolts and civil war, not defending slavers. Apartheid was abolished by attacking its structures, not emphasizing justice for racists. Do you have any examples of what you're thinking about?
Come on, nobody in Australia is made more safe by this.Yes, and "discrimination" against people with weapons, "discrimination" against gropers, "discrimination" against the underage, etc. It's almost like people are generally supportive of rules for safety.
And we don't like discrimination at the doors of nightclubs, but like this discrimination.
You don't stick to that, though. You previously insisted that personal preference and decision making over-rides safety for others. Let individuals decide, you said. You were wrong then - because vaccines didn't yet exist - but you'd be right to say it now.Mine include personal freedom, but also securing people's safety, having evidence-based rules to delineate the boundary between freedom and safety, and applying those rules equally.
I'm sure you noticed that Djoko had lawyers, the right to appeal and so on.lpm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:52 pmObviously it's things like giving a SS concentration guard and a child rapist free legal counsel, rights to a fair trial and the full protection of law. We don't like it. We instinctively hate the lawyers who try to get them off the charges. But we know it's what should be done.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:08 pmI think historically we got justice for people we like by fighting for it deliberately. Slavery wad abolished because of slave revolts and civil war, not defending slavers. Apartheid was abolished by attacking its structures, not emphasizing justice for racists. Do you have any examples of what you're thinking about?
Proper systems that treat immigrants as humans and give them rights to enter a country will also protect tw.ts like Djokovic. You really want a system where someone fleeing from Syria can be kicked out by Patel because their vaccination papers aren't in order?
We certainly can't - but I'm not sure what those things have in common with vaccine rules during a pandemic.Come on, nobody in Australia is made more safe by this.Yes, and "discrimination" against people with weapons, "discrimination" against gropers, "discrimination" against the underage, etc. It's almost like people are generally supportive of rules for safety.
And we don't like discrimination at the doors of nightclubs, but like this discrimination.
The answer is always going to be to offer vaccines to everyone, then return to normal liberties. As you might have noticed at the moment there's a massive land grab going on where the fascist-inclined rule lovers are wanting to reverse freedoms won in the 20th Century, from voting rights to gay rights to free speech. We can't let them win.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... ti-vaxxersshpalman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:39 pm... and some ordinary stupid f.ckers and the corrupt f.cking nurse who enabled their f.cking fuckery.
Well, in that case I hope it's because you don't understand what prejudice is, because it's always wrong. Prejudice against a selfishly stupid person means that when they are involved in a situation, you don't keep an open mind and fairly investigate the circumstances, but instead make a judgement against them regardless.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:17 pmThough personally I'm not too bothered if people start holding prejudice against selfish stupidity.
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:47 pmI'd be in favour of Australia making an exception to its vaccine rules for refugees, fwiw, as they'll mostly be coming from places with poorer health infrastructure and need support.
I wouldn't be in favour of an exception for rich celebrities.
[/qoute]
Yes you would. You just said so in the line above. If you have an exception for one group then you have an exception for those not in that group. Fairness and justice for all cannot have any exceptions.
No. If a rich celebrity cannot get fair treatment, then there's no hope for the refugess.Surely you can see the difference between refugees and rich celebrities?
And the principle of treating rich and poor differently is the very basis for the special privileges that the rich enjoy and discrimination against refugees. If you think there can be a system which treats poor refugees better than rich celebrities, then you're one of the biggest fools I have ever seen. It's equality or nothing.
And yet they seem to unable to set a f.cking cookie to remember my cookie choices from last time.Reuters wrote:Right to Withdraw Consent
If you are an individual located in the EU/EEA, UK, or Switzerland you have the right, at any time, to withdraw your consent if you previously provided a controller with your consent to process your personal data. If you previously provided your consent to allow cookies on your browser, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. You may withdraw your consent to our use of non-strictly necessary cookies through Reuters.com by clicking on the “Show Purpose” button below. However, if you disable the use of cookies in your browser, it may impact your experience of the site.
Please also note that withdrawing your consent may not mean you will stop seeing advertisements, and that you cannot opt-out of strictly necessary cookies that are required. For more information about your rights as an individual located in the EU/EEA, UK, or Switzerland, please see our Privacy Statement.
Information Our Partners Collect
We want to be transparent about the data our partners collect and how we use it, so you can best exercise control over your personal information. We use the following partners on Reuters.com. In accordance with our Privacy Statement, they may use cookies and other mechanisms to, among other things, connect you with your social networks and tailor advertising to better match your interests. You can elect to opt-out of this information collection by clicking here
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent and legitimate interest. You may exercise your right to consent or object to a legitimate interest, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
If you're rich enough you can buy a passport from various countries that want to encourage investment. You can then live in that country or travel elsewhere. Effectively, you do not need to claim asylum because you can arrange it yourself. That's hugely easier than the process faced by poorer people.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:45 amWell, it's easier to claim asylum if you're a refugee rather than a rich celebrity, for example.
Only because the rules are unacceptable. From https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... rison-saysBut that's irrelevant. Djoko's treatment seems to have been entirely consistent with the rules.
That's exactly the same sort of rule as the one allowing the Home Secretary to strip people of British citizenship - totally unacceptable rule by whim of a politician. The grounds for revoking the visa should have been either the false declaration or the dubious exemption.Hawke’s overarching argument for cancelling the visa was that Djokovic’s presence in Australia “may pose a health risk to the Australian community” because it “may foster anti-vaccination sentiment”.
The immigration minister used powers under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act to cancel Djokovic’s visa “on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so”.
Four inmates at an Arkansas jail have filed a lawsuit against the facility and its doctor after they said they were unknowingly prescribed ivermectin to treat Covid-19 as a form of “medical experimentation” despite US health officials warning that the anti-parasitic drug should not be used for that purpose.
The Arkansas’ chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of the men last week against Washington county jail, Washington county sheriff Tim Helder and jail physician Dr. Robert Karas. Last August, Helder revealed that the drug had been prescribed to patients with Covid-19.
“The lawsuit charges the defendants for administering ivermectin to incarcerated individuals without prior informed consent as to the nature, contents, or potential side effects of the drug,” the ACLU said in a statement last week.
I saw that on the telly with MrsBJN. I had a minor rant, while her succinct comment was "tw.ts."
In the case of djokovic, everyone knows his circumstances. It's not prejudice, it's judice, or judgement. I judge (and so, clearly, do many others) that he's a selfish, entitled, stupid prick.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:20 amWell, in that case I hope it's because you don't understand what prejudice is, because it's always wrong. Prejudice against a selfishly stupid person means that when they are involved in a situation, you don't keep an open mind and fairly investigate the circumstances, but instead make a judgement against them regardless.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:17 pmThough personally I'm not too bothered if people start holding prejudice against selfish stupidity.