Eliasson took off her glasses and rubbed the bridge of her nose.
Here we go.Kowani wrote:Firstly, on the vaccination point: The if one is to look at the relevant clauses, clause 2A says, and I quote, “The integrity of one’s body or possessions may be violated if the lives of others are
immediately in jeopardy.” The key word here is immediately, as an unvaccinated child does not immediately endanger the lives of others, at least not until they become sick. Because subsection 2 says that violations of one’s personal integrity shall only be done for the purpose of gathering evidence for a court of law, there is no way to twist this statute into allowing vaccinations if the child doesn’t want one.”
"Madam Speaker, I believe that the Honorable Member misunderstands the purpose of the clause at question. The purpose of the clause as read before this Chamber is to prevent anyone other than an officer of the law from compelling a physical person, and they can only do so in order to, for one, gather evidence on bases of probable clause, or, two,
in order to force persons to comply with the law. If I might read the section in question oncemore:
The integrity of one’s physical person, as well as one’s property, possessions, and assets, shall not be violated except by officers of the law, and such violations shall only be done with the purpose of gathering evidence on the basis of probable cause or protecting others as directed and sanctioned by a court of law.
"Madam Speaker, allow me to entertain the Honorable Members line of thought. If a family, or say, a child, decides to not vaccinate, and the government has created a law requiring vaccinations, the doctors present would merely report the offense to the courts, who would then direct, as this bill delineates, the officers of the law to force vaccination upon the child. That's the end of it, Madam Speaker, and I reiterate, it is for
the purpose of protecting others."
“Oh? I turn to the University of Harvard, an esteemed American University, and, I assume that all shall agree to be a reliable, unbiased source.”
He pulls out a piece of paper: “Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other
sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change.” “I would explain to the honorable member that although it is, in fact a mental disease, it is also a sexual orientation, and that the two are not mutually exclusive. That said, let us move on.”
"Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but there is a clear and understood legal divide between someone who is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and someone who is a pedophile. This law is meant to protect the former. Pedophilia is not a certain preference, as homosexuality is the preference for members of the same sex or heterosexuality the preference for the opposing sex. Pedophiles can target both genders; it is not exclusive to a certain gender, that's why it is not an orientation. What it is, Madam Speaker, is child abuse of the highest degree. I am astonished that the Honorable Member can compare pedophilia with heterosexuality or homosexuality."
“Madam speaker, I would wish to remind the honorable member that I withdrew my objection to the trial by one’s peers upon having reread the document. But let’s us move on.”
(OOC: this is my fault; I have not had enough time until now to read into the details of your second post. Sorry).
“On the point of States of Emergency, the idea that the government would not extend it indefinitely is wishful fantasy. One could make that argument for any of the protections for individuals listed in this document, and so, one must wonder why it is being raised here. And, we need not speculate, as this has happened in reality, and is, in fact, still happening today in certain states.”
"Madam Speaker, What the Honorable Member says is true, but I have full confidence that the courts to know the difference between a true state of emergency and a farce to imprison the citizenry. To put it rather bluntly, it seems that the Honorable Member is trying to find loopholes where none exist. Madam Speaker, we are a developed country ruled by law and order. I highly doubt that any unlawful suspensions of habeas corpus will occur, and if they do, then the courts, as I said, will intervene."
“As to Section 8, I would ask the honorable member that if he is already protected from criminal proceedings in this nation, why on Earth are we repeating legislation? If he is not, I would ask why the monarch should be above the law, when this nation is ostensibly built upon the principle that all humans are equal in rights.” But perhaps today is not the day for republicanism.”
"Madam Speaker, I remind the Honorable Member that
all leaders of state are allotted this protection as per international law. We cannot prosecute
any Monarch, whether it be the King of Sweden or the King of Swaziland. Once again, Mister Speaker, this rule would be the same whether or not we were a republic."