Here is a link to my open letter to members of the Parliament of Victoria:
Please feel free to share or link to it in any way that may assist.
Below I also briefly describe my views on the proposed legislation.
Michael Leunig’s cartoon on the same subject succinctly tells the same story:
The proposed Legislation and its anti-democratic impulse
Without the freedom to be able to engage and participate in society, there is no true democracy. When a government (whether elected or not, lest we forget lessons from the 20th century) seeks to remove the freedom to participate unless partaking of particular medications (or equivalent), then a step has been taken that is politically unjust and morally deficient. This is, in essence, the basic problem of the proposed legislation.
The argument presented is that the ‘science’ points to the benefit for the whole community of global vaccination. That is all well and fine. The basic idea is that in order to render immunity from illnesses that are potentially threatening (with either serious illness or even possible death), vaccination provides an effective means for which the human body may produce antibodies without having to simultaneously fight an attack from a live virus.
There is no question about the current understanding of the medical science that advocates for vaccination, and the concerns I raise have nothing to do with speaking for or against the benefits or otherwise of vaccinations. Most people I know, in any case, have partaken of vaccination after looking into its risks and benefits – and on that, to imply that no risks exist is simply false and itself ‘bad science’ (to use the language the government is using).
Some responsible adults, looking into the situation, consider the associated risks not worth taking. Alternatively, some consider that the science is itself not fully understood as each iteration of vaccination schedule increases either content or frequency, making its known side-effects plausible conjecture. For others still, there are concerns about ingesting or injecting particular substances for which they may have conscientious objection. Still others consider that healthy human beings, though potentially taking greater risks if unvaccinated, would likely be able to survive an infection subject to their own access to healthy foods and water (that many parts of the world of course unfortunately continue to lack).
It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that the views of minorities are respected, even if not conforming to the views of current science. To consider and not opt into vaccination of one’s family is not a ‘loophole’ (as the current government suggests) – unless of course one considers personal freedom, autonomy and personal responsibility as legal ‘loopholes’ (a worrying stance that has actually been communicated by members of the current government!). To impose or penalise those who do nothing wrong except not partake of government-imposed injections is mindbogglingly autocratic, and has no place in a western democracy.