Part 1: Understanding importance of the Privacy Act

Why growing trends of presenting a vaccine pass is unethical?

When “VancityGreeks” approached me to write blog on why presenting a vaccine pass is a slippery slope, it bothered me that there was a lack of understanding of why this was dangerous. I realized as I was preparing for this; that why needed to be first defined before we could even go into the why not. We need to understand the sociological and psychological behaviour of the want to be obedient of vaccine passes before we can even define why as Canadians, we can not participate; regardless of our vaccine status.

The government’s agenda of pushing vaccine passports is everywhere but until I started researching; I was shocked to see the extent of citizens willing to give up their privacy for this vaccine recruitment program. Why? The common theme, the need to feel safe.

Safety is a basic need of humans. It is a beautiful idea; creating safety for those around us; for those we love. As far back in history as we know, humans participate in activities that make us feel safer. We create locks for our doors, we cut down trees build fences, we domesticated wolves to protect us, and we created weapons to protect us.

Mothers are able to take safety to another level and protect their offsprings. Growing up, we all heard things like “don’t hang out with so and so, he or she isn’t a good influence” or “don’t do that, you’ll hurt yourself.” We quite often did not listen and quickly learned (some of us slower than others) that Mother is always right and we now do the same with our children.

In our modern world, safety has become an all encompassing word especially when it comes to our health. We avoid process food, we avoid sitting too much, and we participate in behaviour that makes us “safe” and in turn healthy. In fact safety and health almost interchangeable. Sometimes in the need to be “healthy,” it becomes all consuming and to the point where we wonder if it is even “safe” anymore.

So when the call came in 2020 that we need to wash our hands, social distance and wear masks to keep safe: we went to work. We taught our children to sing annoying songs from ‘Daniel Tigers Neighbourhood’ just to make sure they are washed their hands for 20 seconds. Freedom was the farthest thing from our mind and we were willing to give up our livelihoods, social lives, and more for the protection and safety; not only ourselves and our children; but importantly the greater good. When we were warned that we were giving up our freedoms, we did not notice or care as we were too focused on the dangers around us. We often felt like we became prisoners in our own homes but we did not care. Safety was noble. Safety was honourable. Safety was important.

In recent months, safety has gone beyond washing hands, social distancing and masks to much more. Now we are expected to not only continue the trio but to also take a controversial vaccine. Then once we do, to participate in main stream society, we have show everyone from gym owners to hostesses our medical history by carrying digital papers. What we took for granted has now become a reward for “good behaviour.”

Government propaganda tells us that not only is safe but … It is honourable. It is noble. Society is better for it. We are told that children under the age of majority can make a decision with parental consent to take a medical treatment so they too can to be honourable and noble without parental consent and not worry about telling their parents. And if they are too young, then only one parent can make that decision. Why? The greater good for safety. To be honourable. To be noble. To be safe.

So the question is: when does safety stop being safe and become fear. Is the need for safety out of fear then pave the way for those in power to take advantage of the situation and turn the state into a authoritarian state?

“In 1979, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky posited a new branch of behavioral economics, which they titled prospect theory. One of their key findings was that human beings are naturally loss-averse — we generally are willing to forego the probability of gains in order to minimize the chance of losses

………

But what if the problem we are seeking to solve is risk itself? What if our policymakers aren’t concerned with counterbalancing loss aversion on behalf of more productive risk-taking? What if, instead, our policymakers lie to us, and tell us that risk is no longer necessary at all?.” https://eagleforum.org/publications/insights/when-risk-avoidance-leads-to-totalitarianism.html

What if we could remain safe without policy makers creating such authoritarian mandates that are damaging society? What if they are doing it for their means not for ours? What if we were fooled?

What if they tell us it is actually not for our safety but rather just a narrative to create incentives for their medical programs but we are willing to go along because now it is “law.” We are just following “orders” or being good citizens. We do not “want to cause problems.” We do not want to get fined (we need to protect our families.) So the question then becomes when does participating in something that is morally wrong become dangerous?

North American’s morality is based off Christian principles and the Bible is quite clear. In Old Testament Lev 18:3, we are told “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.” And in Acts 5:29, St Peter and the Apostles state that “We must obey God rather than men.”

For those who are secular here is another quote from from American statesman Alexander Hamilton (a flawed but a man who admitted his flaws and stood for truth even if it damaged his reputation) once said “unjust authority confers no obligation of obedience”

So do we need to obey these mandates? Or do we practice united none compliance?

Imagine a world where great men and women followed the “trends.”

Imagine a world where the risk was not important.

Imagine a world where individuals did not risk their personal safety for others?

Imagine a world with no Martin Luther King, a world without Abraham Lincoln, a world without Socrates and even more importantly; a world without Christ.

So to conclude the first part of this series, my question to all of you is this:

Does the risk outweigh our freedom? How much are we willing to give up for the idea of “safety” and are we even safe? Are we actually safe when following the “rules?” Or is life with constant struggle of risk have greater fulfilment? The choice is yours.