Winston

I think consent should be apart of the COVID mandate discussion, that is my position.

Until you answer my question I would not bother answering yours.

Limiting someone's freedom based on vaccination status is extortion with the intent to coerce vaccine acceptance by use of threats/force. Elaborate please?

I am not West Can Man. Go talk with him. You also did not answer my question " Should consent no longer be an ethical position we hold?"

If people are threatened or extorted, generally people will do the bidding of the extorter. Should consent no longer be an ethical position we hold?

If you want to rally the public, keep things simple and objective. One or two objectives at a time at most. It also helps to solidify a position against those that hold opposing viewpoints. I understand there are many other issues at play.

If the unvaccinated are treated differently, in terms of freedom to attend a restaurant, they hold different freedoms than those who are vaccinated. Coerced or forced vaccine acceptance is extortion. Agreed, but generally those rights are lost after court decision, with ample time and legal support. Are you referring to something else?

If I may suggest, simplify the argument. We can talk about all the other issues, but the argument becomes blurry. Leave political, racial or class systems aside. What is the exact issue? Pick only one point and move forward. What is the primary problem with the mandates? Only one major point. If we want to solve the mandates, please pinpoint and focus on one objective at a time.

I would leave political ideologies aside. Focus on the major issue, do we wish to loose the idea consent? In the real sense, is extortion okay?

The entire argument has nothing to do with vaccinations, it has everything to do individual consent. Threating the individual in order to get the desired response is not consent. Do we not care about an individual consent anymore? Should consent no longer be an ethical position we hold?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20475169-trump-speech-jan6, t P15 "And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." This is potentially vague, however when a public figure ( president) speaks publicly they must be careful, using the exact wording to define and communicate their exact intent. The definition of "Fight" in Trumps speech would be? Trump may have wanted a peaceful protest, however using the term "fight" may have indicated otherwise, depending upon ones definition of fight, unless you can point to other places in the speech where it is used different to the general definition?

The fundamental question comes down to, is the threat of force or the death used to demand compliance? If yes, then any idea of personal "choice" is removed, it is an instinctual behavior, not free will choice.

Even if covid goes the way of "violation of charter", they wont be held criminally liable, because that is not how the system operates. Yes, some random doctor somewhere, responsible for some informative task will be held criminally liable for the decisions, but not the actual responsible individuals. I do not know what your expecting?

You have your answer. This topic has been covered for about a year on this forum, there are tons of examples where people agree and disagree with certain positions. Ultimately it does not matter what we think, especially when none of us are in positions to change the country. (maybe I am wrong) In my opinion, Covid is just a distraction. Inflation, economic damage, disparity of wealth, disparity of power, university brain drain and the collapse of western society is more concerning.

We are in agreement. The risk for the general public is low enough to open up. Look around this forum, most people agree drastic measures should not be enforced, yet they still exist. But I do not think there is a way out of this without the people responsible having a scape goat. Do you? Covid is now more of a social distraction from the major issues plaguing society.

There are several, but specific to your topic, viral outbreak. If the risk is high, the government would be acting in the best interest of the public to protect them. With regard to Covid, what is the risk of death or long term personal health damage? And what is the the reproduction ratio?

In specific situation yes, when the risk of public endangerment is high yes.

I would think that is more fascism or totalitarianism than communism, assuming were using the same definitions. However, I do agree with your premise that forced "consent" is not consent by choice.

How is Canada communistic? Most goods and services are privately held, we have a capitalistic society with socialistic tendencies towards government service sectors.

I do not think you understand how the world works or how choice works. Based on your lack of discussion or supporting position, my guess is it is probably not worth my time.

I do not think you understand the conversation occurring on this topic. People would be thrilled to choose, yet the expectation is obedient consent or else force is used. It is not a choice.

Yes HB is pro totalitarian restrictions and the use of force, it was obvious from the post of freedom of "choice" with regard to the use of force.

Thanks. Thus force is applied to people for vaccinations, masking and behavior. Nothing about this is by choice. We have reach a state of Totalitarianism.

Force will be applied to remove them. People using the threat of force or death will remove them. A choice can not be made under threat the of force or death. If however there were clinics that allowed unmasked people and the unmasked person chose to attend a masked clinic, then that would be a direct choice. At which point I would agree with your statement, this does not exist today.

What will happen if they keep coming back unmasked to the medical clinic?