We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

Post by thinksaboutit »

Speedstick wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 6:32 am Thinksaboutit why are you a 'Covid Vaccine Death Denier' ?
You have still never answered me on who gave you the right to play God!!!!
You really are losing the plot with your last statement.

I'd agree that there will be a small number of vaccine related deaths, but the thing is this is vanishingly small.
The anti-vaxx camp seeks to imply causation to ALL reported vaccine adverse reactions. This is simply not supportable and to make these accusations with the hope of persuading people not get get vaccinated is simply malicious.

You are entitled to use your own deranged judgement when making your personal decisions, but not to influence others.

If you are honest to yourself, you would understand that you do not know for a fact that you are right.

Anti-vaxx people come in 2 types:
1. The malicious spreaders of the massage, who know it is garbage (that's all the social media "doctors", people quote and follow)
2. The gullible folks that believe them and propagate the garbage.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

Post by thinksaboutit »

Speedstick wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 6:32 am Thinksaboutit why are you a 'Covid Vaccine Death Denier' ?
You have still never answered me on who gave you the right to play God!!!!
First point is not that case, but vaccine deaths are astonishingly rare.

Second point. There is no god!

I am only seeking to highlight the damaging garbage that people put about.

CoronanationStreet
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

Post by CoronanationStreet »

thinksaboutit wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 4:47 pm
Nobody wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:36 am Formalised rules are one thing, they need to relate to the institution of actual rights that are realised via possibilities in people's lives, for that, we need new institutions. And we need institutions that prevent the manipulation of outcomes via the use of legitimating scientific representations that, more or less, dictate outcomes without regard for the effects on people who are supposed to be the subject of state concern.
Here is an interesting piece of information from the US, In 1976 , when they rolled a swine flu vaccine, there were 53 deaths and the vaccine programme was immediately terminated, in 2021 there have been 4100 and nothing has been done. That indicates a massive change in the nature of the state and its relation to people.
Do you have some credible evidence your claimed 4100 deaths have a causal link to the vaccine?

Don't just quote the adverse reactions database, since that illustrates the coincidence between the 2 factors.

Read the following words from the CDC, if you don't believe this.

CDC uses the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to closely monitor reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination.

FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS.
Reports to VAERS of death following vaccination do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused the death.
CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information to learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or was unrelated.
"Testing positive" using a test, which isn't designed as a diagnositic test, within 28 days of death doesn't necessarily mean covid was reaponsible even if it were detected.

Nobody
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

Post by Nobody »

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/is-covid ... XdryH.html

43 minutes they discuss problems with VAERS and reporting vaccine damage.

CoronanationStreet
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

Post by CoronanationStreet »

JDee wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:53 pm How many constitutional arrangement written or unwritten have managed to protect their population from authoritarianism over the imposition of useless lockdowns and mask mandates?

The fact that so many haven’t means that most countries need a new bill or rights written which will fit and work within their constitutional arrangements.

The reality about the sovereignty of the UK government and parliament is the basic point that whatever any written law says it is naturally borrowed from each and every citizen. The UK government cannot therefore have the right to usurp or misuse that sovereignty of the individual man in the street, whose concern is primarily to get on with his life and living. The primary purpose of Government sovereignty and law is to support and enable its individual citizens in this endeavour. The primary purpose of parliament is to defend the right of the individual citizen or man in the street over and against the vested interests of power groups, whether business or ideological along with the government executive. Unfortunately parliament is itself made up of vested interest power groups. The man in the street now only gets the last crumbs from its table if at all.

The situation is not helped by the Human rights act 2010 which focuses on identity groups – protected characteristic’s (more vested interest power groups), rather than the essential facts which make an individual person’s identity, which need defending so they can get on with their primary purpose of life and living unmolested. The current doctrine around equality and diversity of our personal identity is totally confused and in practice really means either or both of; equality and equality or total chaos where the community can have no common understanding. We are then either ruled as robots or divided and ruled.

But this situation does provide the opportunity for a beneficial reset precisely because the example of how most of the free world has so easily fallen into authoritarianism, (with as yet no light at the end of the tunnel), highlights just how badly formed our laws are protecting individual citizens and their right to make a living. The opportunity is to have a better go at getting this right so that a new bill of rights would be a further barrier to us so easily falling into authoritarianism again.

Authoritarianism, even Boris’s soft fluffy one, still ultimately destroys what is properly needed for personal growth our right to make our life and a living and therefore also identity.
It might, but then again citizens of plenty of other states with codified constitutions and bills of rights (and with dissimilar legal systems) have experienced the same problems with laws being passed in similar manners, bypassing normal parliamentary and constitutional rules.

There are two aspects to this, firstly re-codifying individual fundamental rights in a way which they cannot be abrogated by legislation or by the executive. Secondly, reformulating parliamentary rules to ensure in times of emergency parliament sits more often, without recess/holidays, emergency legislation must to require plenary sessions and a higher majority, no party whip, full disclosure of advice upon which laws are proposed. In a nationwide emergency any new laws which impact on fundamental rights and liberties should be properly debated and modified where necessary and only enacted with some form of special majority. And that should be part of a new constitution.

Early Doubter
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:46 pm

Mask mocking

Post by Early Doubter »

I have tried the wry smile, even the passing taunt and the outright response to mask wearers "to get that thing off if you want to talk to me". However, I found what disturbs the mask wearer the most, is making the sign of the cross when passing them. I don't believe it is blasphemous (as wearing mask in church is, I believe). It is a sign for oneself and for the wearer and since it is often made when one sees the sick or dying I think it is appropriate for the walking-dead or those who think they would be if they took off their masks, Making the sign of the cross really rattles many a cage.

How to: the sign of the cross is made using your right hand, you should first touch your forehead; then the lower middle of your chest; then the left shoulder and lastly the right shoulder.

funtimes
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:45 am

Re: We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

Post by funtimes »

Speedstick wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 6:32 am Thinksaboutit why are you a 'Covid Vaccine Death Denier' ?
You have still never answered me on who gave you the right to play God!!!!
Ignore these avatars. Why are you entertaining them? They either despise their own existence or are sick or are here to promote the agendas. Neither of those options are going to support you. By their nature they do the opposite. This isnt a campfire storytelling situation buddy. Its a cancer ripping through society and you either choose to attach yourself to that cancer or you choose to rightfully establish boundaries and fight it off. The fighting you do is not on a forum wasting time going back and fourth with random insignificant lurkers, its with yourself. Your biggest adversary is yourself, always.

Just remember we have always had sh*tty humans. What do sh*tty humans want the most? A reason to continue being sh*tty humans. Look around you. You see the perfect opportunity for that to happen. And here you are trying to fool yourself into believing everybody is on the same page as you and everyone wants to live a good life and be happy and thrive and do all the things decent people do. You are lying to yourself. Look around you. People dont want the same things. They are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to make sure they never get a chance to have those same things, and they want to make sure you dont either.

Its always been that way. Its your responsibility to see that and then choose to raise YOUR awareness and work on YOURSELF. By entertaining these avatars on your screen you are entertaining the opposite of what you want. Its like choosing to spend time with best friends or those toxic work colleagues at the office. What choice are you going to make? Plow through these people by standing tall and strong and being the beacon that guides others. And you dont do that by mingling with the riff-raff and all the creatures at the bottom of the pit who have never seen the light of day and choose to stay lurking in the shadows. You dont belong there with those people so why are choosing to put yourself there unless that is what you want?

People are living in fear. They REALLY believe this is very real. Some of them are decent people who if you met in person and away from the narrative could become friends. And then you have the outcasts, the rejects, the dregs of society who come any other normal day have nothing to live for and are worthless. The latter form a large portion of the "opposition" but they are not really opposition. The only opposition in this dynamic is their own reflection. You being a part of this dynamic is just so you can become their object to project onto. You dont need to let that happen but losing your sh*t and giving in to these low level inferior and invalidated people and giving them your time isnt the right way not to let it happen.

You can do it by just continuing to live a normal life and to not be buckled by THEIR fear projected onto you. Shrug off the invalidation and inferiority. Some people are simply not meant to understand their predicament. See it as a PROJECTION. See it as them suffering. See it as them being sick. When you look into their eyes and I have done this many times, you see these people have already lost whatever fight they are fighting. They are simply attempting to project a sense of superiority out onto all those they believe are the object of their miserable existence but this attempt is so pathetic at the slightest bit of resistance they buckle. They are soldiers of war until they find out what war means and are faced with someone willing to defend themselves and their lives to the death. It doesnt take much to crack the fragile facade they put up. Again, you can do that by just getting on your life and knowing you are better, stronger, wiser and bigger than them for doing so.

By entertaining the bugs on the floor and pretending like having a relationship with these bugs will support you, get off your knees, stop playing in the mud and BE the person you want to be in this world and who you believe other likeminded people will gravitate to. Once you do this you will naturally outgrow all the ones who never got off the starting line, and that is how it was always supposed to be. You are not meant to be on the winning team when the so-called winners are actually losers. So why pretend otherwise? Find the winners. Be the winner. Stop worrying about small fry. It doesnt take much to squash them so stop wasting time acting like they are a worthy adversary.

They lost their credibility when they were willing to sell themselves for an agenda set about destroying everything around you, arguably something similiar to WW3 only the war is on the general population around the world by their own governments. These people are nothing. They gave up a long time ago. Their lives were preparing them for this. Thats why we call them sheep. Sheep are to be slaughtered.

Accept it and move forward.

Nobody
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

Post by Nobody »

"I'd agree that there will be a small number of vaccine related deaths, but the thing is this is vanishingly small.
The anti-vaxx camp seeks to imply causation to ALL reported vaccine adverse reactions. This is simply not supportable and to make these accusations with the hope of persuading people not get get vaccinated is simply malicious.

You are entitled to use your own deranged judgement when making your personal decisions, but not to influence others.

If you are honest to yourself, you would understand that you do not know for a fact that you are right.

Anti-vaxx people come in 2 types:
1. The malicious spreaders of the massage, who know it is garbage (that's all the social media "doctors", people quote and follow)
2. The gullible folks that believe them and propagate the garbage."

What you overlook is that a lot of us don't speak as professionals, we speak just as people, citizens, giving the grounds of our own decisions, explaining our reasons, so that others can consider those reasons and consider them.
Quite apart from the problematic idea of a "deranged judgement" informing one's decision on this, you seem to repeatedly accept the official representations. There are clearly very serious reasons to have reservations about every aspect of this public health response. What part of it is not extremely problematic? The World Health Organisation is compromised by the influence of big pharmaceuticals companies which are criminal organisations with appalling histories. Look at Gates' history of vaccine damage, being kicked out of India and then going to Africa. World Health Organisation changed the criteria required to declare pandemic after the swine flu failed to satisfy their needs to function as a market-creation tool for the pharmaceuticals companies using it to establish contracts for vaccines that would be purchased if pandemic was called. They reduced two key criteria relating to number of deaths and severity of symptoms so all they would need was a manipulable diagnostic tool to create the cases which they got from the PCR test. The pandemic has been managed to establish a global market for vaccines enforced by passport and legal mechanisms that will change the status of our personhood. Now, whether you accept this or not, this seems to me something that should lead us to be suspicious. The vaccines, if they are indeed vaccines, are experimental and come into a context that has been engineered to create their necessity and escape liability. At what point do you not begin to question any of this? Does it appear like a benign series of conditions to you? The global state has not kindly recommended that you take this vaccine, they have not given health advice, these edicts have been policed by a biostate that is historically new and has initiated to what they are threatening is our "new normal": the virus and vaccines are being used to initiate an assault on the nature of our existence. Given this context to the vaccine, you don't have pause for thought? There is a new study saying that the vaccine itself will reduce overall immunity and linking it to two new disorders that I cannot spell and cannot be bothered to look up.
I know nothing, but I think I can, from my isolation and internet connection find independent sources that I trust more than I trust any of the scum in the world's governments and the hidden actors behind them who have both created the original virus and used a host of supposedly humanitarian organisations, hijacking noble ideas whose abstraction are used to manipulate humanity into extremely limited and, thereby, damaging conditions. This is why human beings need liberty: they need to experience viable interpersonal forms in order to develop beyond their current actuality, and this is precisely why the state, globally, wants to limit such potentialities. Why would a government agency supposed to be concerned with our well-being cut people off, particularly the young, from the very roots of developmental mediations? This has happened before via the use of state violence to decimate pockets in economic areas, Russia and France did it with their peasantries, one was violent, the other used symbolic forms of violence, but this targets the mass of the people and the vaccine is the fulcrum of the state's efforts. Seems a fucking good reason not to take it for me.

JDee
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2021 5:35 pm

Re: We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

Post by JDee »

CoronanationStreet wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:30 pm
JDee wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:53 pm How many constitutional arrangement written or unwritten have managed to protect their population from authoritarianism over the imposition of useless lockdowns and mask mandates?

The fact that so many haven’t means that most countries need a new bill or rights written which will fit and work within their constitutional arrangements.

The reality about the sovereignty of the UK government and parliament is the basic point that whatever any written law says it is naturally borrowed from each and every citizen. The UK government cannot therefore have the right to usurp or misuse that sovereignty of the individual man in the street, whose concern is primarily to get on with his life and living. The primary purpose of Government sovereignty and law is to support and enable its individual citizens in this endeavour. The primary purpose of parliament is to defend the right of the individual citizen or man in the street over and against the vested interests of power groups, whether business or ideological along with the government executive. Unfortunately parliament is itself made up of vested interest power groups. The man in the street now only gets the last crumbs from its table if at all.

The situation is not helped by the Human rights act 2010 which focuses on identity groups – protected characteristic’s (more vested interest power groups), rather than the essential facts which make an individual person’s identity, which need defending so they can get on with their primary purpose of life and living unmolested. The current doctrine around equality and diversity of our personal identity is totally confused and in practice really means either or both of; equality and equality or total chaos where the community can have no common understanding. We are then either ruled as robots or divided and ruled.

But this situation does provide the opportunity for a beneficial reset precisely because the example of how most of the free world has so easily fallen into authoritarianism, (with as yet no light at the end of the tunnel), highlights just how badly formed our laws are protecting individual citizens and their right to make a living. The opportunity is to have a better go at getting this right so that a new bill of rights would be a further barrier to us so easily falling into authoritarianism again.

Authoritarianism, even Boris’s soft fluffy one, still ultimately destroys what is properly needed for personal growth our right to make our life and a living and therefore also identity.
It might, but then again citizens of plenty of other states with codified constitutions and bills of rights (and with dissimilar legal systems) have experienced the same problems with laws being passed in similar manners, bypassing normal parliamentary and constitutional rules.

There are two aspects to this, firstly re-codifying individual fundamental rights in a way which they cannot be abrogated by legislation or by the executive. Secondly, reformulating parliamentary rules to ensure in times of emergency parliament sits more often, without recess/holidays, emergency legislation must to require plenary sessions and a higher majority, no party whip, full disclosure of advice upon which laws are proposed. In a nationwide emergency any new laws which impact on fundamental rights and liberties should be properly debated and modified where necessary and only enacted with some form of special majority. And that should be part of a new constitution.
Thanks for the response. I did speak of both written and unwritten constitutions failing, and that any new bill would need to be formulated to work within the current constitutional arrangements.

I agree its about working out how a bolt on would protect the people from an overreaching executive properly. I think part of that would be about enabling other institutions, parliament the judiciary, the police and the media to have a formal role in defending certain core rights around a persons freedom to get on with their life unmolested. This would not stop the executive ultimately changing the core rules, but it would formalize due process around the change (including very strict rules around emergency suspensions) - which if not done would enable the judiciary to force an election or referendum to sort it out. This would be a significant new role for a law panel which would need to be able to respond quickly and continuously in certain situations.

This general defence of these core rights could be formulated to bring the law and the defence of these core right back to the main in the street on an everyday basis and not just in national crisis situations.

JDee
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2021 5:35 pm

Re: We need a new Bill of Rights out of all this.

Post by JDee »

CoronanationStreet wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:30 pm
JDee wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:53 pm How many constitutional arrangement written or unwritten have managed to protect their population from authoritarianism over the imposition of useless lockdowns and mask mandates?

The fact that so many haven’t means that most countries need a new bill or rights written which will fit and work within their constitutional arrangements.

The reality about the sovereignty of the UK government and parliament is the basic point that whatever any written law says it is naturally borrowed from each and every citizen. The UK government cannot therefore have the right to usurp or misuse that sovereignty of the individual man in the street, whose concern is primarily to get on with his life and living. The primary purpose of Government sovereignty and law is to support and enable its individual citizens in this endeavour. The primary purpose of parliament is to defend the right of the individual citizen or man in the street over and against the vested interests of power groups, whether business or ideological along with the government executive. Unfortunately parliament is itself made up of vested interest power groups. The man in the street now only gets the last crumbs from its table if at all.

The situation is not helped by the Human rights act 2010 which focuses on identity groups – protected characteristic’s (more vested interest power groups), rather than the essential facts which make an individual person’s identity, which need defending so they can get on with their primary purpose of life and living unmolested. The current doctrine around equality and diversity of our personal identity is totally confused and in practice really means either or both of; equality and equality or total chaos where the community can have no common understanding. We are then either ruled as robots or divided and ruled.

But this situation does provide the opportunity for a beneficial reset precisely because the example of how most of the free world has so easily fallen into authoritarianism, (with as yet no light at the end of the tunnel), highlights just how badly formed our laws are protecting individual citizens and their right to make a living. The opportunity is to have a better go at getting this right so that a new bill of rights would be a further barrier to us so easily falling into authoritarianism again.

Authoritarianism, even Boris’s soft fluffy one, still ultimately destroys what is properly needed for personal growth our right to make our life and a living and therefore also identity.
It might, but then again citizens of plenty of other states with codified constitutions and bills of rights (and with dissimilar legal systems) have experienced the same problems with laws being passed in similar manners, bypassing normal parliamentary and constitutional rules.

There are two aspects to this, firstly re-codifying individual fundamental rights in a way which they cannot be abrogated by legislation or by the executive. Secondly, reformulating parliamentary rules to ensure in times of emergency parliament sits more often, without recess/holidays, emergency legislation must to require plenary sessions and a higher majority, no party whip, full disclosure of advice upon which laws are proposed. In a nationwide emergency any new laws which impact on fundamental rights and liberties should be properly debated and modified where necessary and only enacted with some form of special majority. And that should be part of a new constitution.
Thanks for the response. I did speak of both written and unwritten constitutions failing, and that any new bill would need to be formulated to work within the current constitutional arrangements.

I agree its about working out how a bolt on would protect the people from an overreaching executive properly. I think part of that would be about enabling other institutions, parliament the judiciary, the police and the media to have a formal role in defending certain core rights around a persons freedom to get on with their life unmolested. This would not stop the executive ultimately changing the core rules, but it would formalize due process around the change (including very strict rules around emergency suspensions) - which if not done would enable the judiciary to force an election or referendum to sort it out. This would be a significant new role for a law panel which would need to be able to respond quickly and continuously in certain situations.

This general defence of these core rights could be formulated to bring the law and the defence of these core right back to the main in the street on an everyday basis and not just in national crisis situations.

Post Reply