Response to another instance of a professor suspended for refusing mandatory vaccine

Jonathan Turley is a lawyer and online commentator whose daily posts are worth reading. They’re usually in defense of free speech. However, in my opinion, he’s been wrong on some issues.

In this article, Turley defends a professor’s freedom of speech but seems to disagree with the professor’s comparison of what’s happening to fascism. He also seems to think that mandatory Covid vaccines are a “reasonable health measure.” He does not seem to grasp that they’re a dangerous imposition on the same human freedom that he and other public intellectuals need to speak out against.

Here is the lecture of Prof. David Clements of New Mexico State University:

Here is my reply. I could not post the entirely of this on his blog, so I’m doing so on mine.

Mr. Turley, you’re surprised that he made a strong speech abut this? After every thing that’s happened? The scapegoating of the unvaccinated and the willful violation of freedom of medical choice is morally wrong to the core. I understand the professor’s strong objections to what’s happening.

Another professor, in Canada, recently objected to the fact that it’s fundamentally wrong — really a human rights violation — for an employer to force people to take an experimental drug. She took a principled and commendable stand for basic human freedoms — which all persons of conscience should be doing at this time. Here is the statement by ethics professor, Julie Ponesse, who refused experimental vaccine on the grounds of freedom of medical choice, informed consent, and bodily autonomy:

It should be apparent to any sane, rational person, at this point, that we’re facing is actually the imposition of an authoritarian biosecurity state, a medical tyranny, imposed on us by degrees. Denial of what’s happening is due to fear among most and complicity among some. Many are caught in the boiling frog syndrome: not fully aware of the change until it’s too late.

A comparison with fascism is not unwarranted, if one excludes comparison to its final results — genocide — but includes comparison to the early stages of the totalitarianism being introduced to a population through a psychological operation reliant on disorientation and division, using scapegoating (psychological displacement), censorship, and scapegoating. It is designed to tear our society apart so that the authoritarians can then take over.

The model they’re striving after in this case is not Nazi Germany, but Communist China. The CCP, as it turns out, have been working behind the scenes, through assymetrical warefare, to accomplish world domination, for years. They don’t even hide their ambitions. Look up the “United Front Work Department”; “The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons”; and “Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui.” The pandemic is being used to accomplish that goal.

There are numerous holes in the narrative being imposed on us that undermine its credibility and reveal its nefarious intent. Those who tell us the emperor has no clothes are courageous because they often lose their jobs and are publicliy shamed for doing so. But they know that speaking out is just losing one’s job. Later on, it will mean losing one’s life, once the authoritarians fully take over.

For example, a group of health professionals in British Columbia, Canada, recently stated:

“The lack of answers and the vague information being provided over the past 18+ months do not instill confidence … This lack of transparency has resulted in unprecedented divisiveness amongst citizens, families and friends. There are individuals who are angry that some concerned citizens are not complying and are comparing our current circumstances to the Holocaust. While this may seem extreme, the Holocaust also began with the small removal of freedoms, just as we are seeing today. This historical atrocity started out as a slow and seemingly innocent removal of rights by the government, but quickly morphed into media control, divisiveness between groups of people, and limitations to what one select section of society could do. In this way, the ordinary citizen easily became an enemy of the state.

“Today a one-sided, politically-driven narrative, which is being fuelled by politicians and the media, is causing a similar divisiveness. When only one side of the story is made available to the public, it is easy to understand how individuals can become disgruntled toward other citizens who are fighting to maintain their freedom and bodily autonomy. A political agenda is clearly being pushed here, and the refusal to address questions and concerns of healthcare practitioners and citizens … speaks volumes.”

You can read the whole thing here:

And here is another, similar open letter, by a few Canadian scholars:

“Civil liberties are under attack in Canada and worldwide. On the basis of public health acts and infectious disease laws, limitations to constitutional rights are imposed through emergency orders by Canada’s medical officers of health and by unelected bureaucrats elsewhere. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [in the U.S. the equivalent is the U.S. Constitution] was written specifically to limit government overreach. In a crisis such as this, it is more important than ever to uphold Charter rights. Whether the COVID-19 mandates and restrictions represent reasonable and necessary limitations has yet to be seen. After months of fear, misinformation, lockdowns, mandates, and broken trust, Canadians are starting to wake up in disbelief.”

The whole document is here: A Letter to Public Health Officers (from 12 Canadian scholars)

Additional documents from health officials, scientists, and scholars against vaccine mandates along the same lines (I have posted most of these on this blog in the past):

“The Silence of the Professors” (on issues they should be addressing but are not)

A call for medical freedom of choice against mandates in universities

Letter from 57 doctors, urging an end to ‘vaccines’

Article: “A crisis has now darkened Western democracies just as surely as long-benighted dictatorships. Wherein does it lie? In the disdain with which its proud technocrats dismiss conscience.”

Statistics Canada report: four times as many people under 65 years old died from ‘lockdown deaths’ as from Covid-19. A lockdown death is from suicide, overdose, or lack of access to medical care.

An article on how the Prime Minister (Trudeau) is demonizing and scapegoating unvaccinated Canadians unjustly and why that’s wrong.

Why so many vaccinated people are getting sick? Why are they still promoting the ‘vaccine’ if it’s causing the 4th wave? Short answer: ADE.

And a shorter version of the same:

And Dr. Robert Malone on ADE:

Why was the lockdown model ever followed at all? The costs outweigh the benefits:

Could it be that it had political value for authoritarians, far more than any public health benefit, and the health care industry submitted for fear of losing their jobs? That’s plausible because many who did speak out this draconian measure lost their jobs.

Ask yourself: how can it be right to destroy people’s livelihoods and violate their inalienable rights for a disease with a 94 to 99% recovery rate (depending on age group), and then force people to take an experimental drug or lose their jobs and services?

How can it be right to compel healthy students who have a 99.97% recovery rate to take the jab and put them at risk of adverse events? Why are university students not protesting en masse? They seem to be brainwashed by Leftist ideology to accept this as the price for getting a country they think will be democratic socialist as promised by Bernie Sanders — but in fact will be more like Communist China. In time, they’ll sorely regret their complicity in this.

And how is it right to violate human rights and create a segregated society in which one group of it is scapegoated by imposing vaccine passports and mandates? How is right to suppress low-cost treatments that work in favour of expensive, experimental drugs that don’t provide immunity – drugs that give Big Pharma huge profits and state actors absolute power over us? How is it right to coerce another person to take a drug again their will?

Do we really want a society in which the following are the norm?

• Censorship (no freedom of speech, no academic freedom)
• Suspension of inalienable rights
• Statism and state media with only one approved message
• Scapegoating portions of the population (i.e., the unvaccinated, conservatives)
• Giving state-sanctioned ‘health’ apparatchiks absolute authority over our lives
• Creating lockdown deaths and ruining small businesses and countless lives in the process

We will never emerge from this as long as people continue to submit to it. We need to take a lesson from the Australians who recently went back to the beach in an act of massive civil disobedience.

Giving in to the authoritarians is a slippery slope to more and more losses of freedom until nothing is left and we might as well be living in a Communist country. If we accept the loss of bodily autonomy, where does it end?

I support the law professor’s stand. He was right to tell his students what’s happening in unequivocal terms, and they were foolish if they left class and refused to listen. They’ll later come to regret the loss of a free society they’re naively supporting.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s