Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

11 Comments

  1. “A magistrate has ruled against the government mandate in the NZDF.”
    I’ve heard that judges don’t don’t like being called magistrates these days. Not one little bit. They do not like it. No siree.
    High Court, District courts, Appeal and Supreme, it’s judges and justices.

  2. While I respect the view you have & do not agree with the protests in Wellington parts of your view sound more like a control freak than a sensible response to legitimate differences. A common reason for those refusing military service is that they have religious objections to killing people. Some of those people have served as medics or other non-combatant roles which is generally acknowledged as a sensible compromise. Some of us still hold the view that we were created by a loving God who calls us to follow the basic requirements to love God & love our neighbor (other people) as a priority over any government laws to the contrary. While your views regarding government mandates are reasonable I would have to disregard them if any government mandate was in conflict with God’s word.

  3. What planet do you live on Pat? Have you not yet noticed that the “vaccine” does not prevent you, or the defence force anti mandate protester, from catching covid or passing it on ? How long will it take?
    D J S

    1. When will it dawn on you, David, that transmission of infection is only part of the equation – that the vaccine [no infantile scare quotes] is highly effective at reducing harm from the disease both to people and health systems?
      You’ve had it explained to you often enough.

      1. Big problem with your argument is that these vaccines were never sold to the world as being effective at reducing harm. They offered protection, over 90% protection in some cases, and the boosters today, at least 70% protection. But protection against what, well, it certainly wasn’t protection against reducing harm! Nonetheless, this very notion of ‘reducing harm’ just shows that these vaccines neither stop infection nor transmission.

        And yet they are being mandated anyway. Explain that one to us all!

  4. The High Court decided that vaccine mandates were unlawful because they are ineffective as a public health measure and cause harm disproportionate to any slight benefits they may bring. The vast body of expert opinion, both legal and medical, is in agreement with the High Court. Mr O’Dea does not agree and has been granted the opportunity to advance specious arguments in favor of the mandates which would have been quickly shot down in any objective, dispassionate and unbiased judicial proceeding.
    Covid is in the schools, and Minister Hipkins assures us that it will soon be in the school Mr O’Dea’s children attend, regardless of the fact that all non-vaccinated teachers have been dismissed from their positions.
    Given this simple reality, there is no need to refute Mr O’Dea’s argument in detail. That would be easy to do but would be an unproductive use of good bandwidth.
    Any police officers or defence personnel dismissed by the regime can take comfort from the fact that they will be well received by our people.

  5. How droll.
    A rant from a Unionist and Human rights activist!
    Cuddled up with the Government. To hell with the science eh.

    1. How does that work when the world is full of war? If you want to smear people for me hurting you, fine. Let’s agree on the to rules of the game.

      There cant be 10 sets of rules for different people. It’s absolutely nieve to camoflauge your biased when the world is full of war.

  6. I would imagine that just about every army in the world vaccinates it’s members. My father got jabbed repeatedly for World War II. What’s so special about this particular mandate?

Comments are closed.