5 ms·

Where I live one is still required to present what amounts to an internal passport to do pretty much anything, despite not having any medical justification. Cer

Where I live one is still required to present what amounts to an internal passport to do pretty much anything, despite not having any medical justification. Certainly some things have been normalised which never should have been normalised.

ImaCake 5y ago
Don’t these kind of things happen whenever a war or pandemic happens? Showing your papers was important during WWI and WWII and I am aware of plenty of quarantines and mask mandates associated with previous cholera/TB/flu pandemics. Sure, I agree it sets a dangerous precedent, but we have been setting those kind of precedents for like 150 years. In that time we’ve had totalitarian states and liberal democracies.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  Yes, humanity has normalised many problematic things before. We've set many poor precedents. I don't disagree! The issue here is that vaccine passports currently have no medical justification but are persisting purely as a punishment (I'd say incentive, but anyone here who hasn't yet been vaccinated will never be swayed by vaccine passports at this point). I of course do expect these to go even in my fairly strict jurisdiction, but now the precedent of punishing people in this way has been set. Was quarantine, mask mandates, vaccine mandates used to punish people in this way previously?
  - ImaCake 5y ago
    My close family circle is against the vaccine mandates now, as am I. Although we all supported them initially. So it is hard for me to gauge the general opinion on the mandates. I suspect support is waning fast with high vax rates and the reduced threat of COVID. I don’t think mask mandates punish in the same way as a vaccine mandate. You can change your mind and wear a mask instantly. A vaccine takes time and has greater consequences. Mask wearing is also an altruistic act; you put yourself through mild discomfort mostly to benefit those around you. It’s polite because it makes others feel more comfortable. A vaccine, especially when it comes to Omicron, protects you without really effecting risk of infection. So it’s more of a personal choice. Except at the population level where collective vaccine uptake have helped protect hospitals.
    - bigDinosaur 5y ago
      I think we're mostly in agreement. I mean, I did go and get vaccinated so the coercive measures did work on me, and I also wore a mask when I had to. But I really chafe at the notion that we haven't set a profound precedent in terms of governmental control over daily life, and a lot of people seem completely fine with all these mandates and vaccine passports. I find it kind of shocking, even though I'm pretty heavily pro-vaccine.
traceroute66 5y ago
> Where I live one is still required to present what amounts to an internal passport to do pretty much anything, despite not having any medical justification. Except the UK is an a joke in relation to vaccine passports. The politicians spout "authoritarian" "libertarian" bullshit as an excuse for not using vaccine passports. But then THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT is very happy indeed to introduce a requirement for people to produce ID when voting (Elections Bill). And yet somehow none of the same politicians make any mention of "authoritarian" or "libertarian" when it comes to mandating ID for voting. Or indeed we are talking about THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is busy trying very hard indeed to introduce laws to limit protests (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill). And THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is trying very hard indeed to bring in laws (Nationality and Borders Bill) enabling them to remove British citizenship from someone even if it renders them stateless. Its an absolute farce.
- brigandish 5y ago
  There are situations when it is appropriate to confirm one's identity. Going to the supermarket isn't one, and comparing it to voting - or any of the other situations vaccine passports were to be required - is a nonsense. I can agree with some of the other concerns you've listed, but if you're going to mix them in with reasonable actions by the government like protecting the integrity of elections, I wouldn't be surprised if those other concerns are undermined.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    Protecting the integrity of elections that have all been shown to have very little fraud? Mass fraud without IDs being something of a pipe dream. That doesn’t make much sense.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      Aside from that being a different concern, even if we were to assume that is true, I don't see why it follows that election security shouldn't be improved. Regardless, election fraud has happened many times in the UK, most often from the politicians[1][2][3] (the links would be endless, I'll stop at three), and the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps[4]. However, an audit[5] was undertaken by Democratic Audit, who are funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (both are non-partisan), and here is what they found: > The emergence of evidence of electoral malpractice in English elections during the 2000s ranks among the most concerning emerging developments identified by this Audit. Evidence of malpractice began to mount from 2005 onwards, after an election court convened in Birmingham found five men guilty of large-scale electoral fraud, involving thousands of postal ballots, at local elections in June 2004. In his written judgement, the election commissioner, Richard Mawrey QC, referred to ‘evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.’ > While the Birmingham case represented the most systematic proven case of attempted ballot rigging, there have been numerous other convictions for electoral fraud in the UK since 2000. Court cases relating to large-scale fraud in local elections in Slough in 2007 and Peterborough in 2004 resulted in six convictions each. Following a lengthy police investigation and two re-trials, five men were eventually convicted in September 2010 for electoral fraud offences in the Bradford West constituency during the 2005 general election (the first relating to fraud in a UK general election for almost one hundred years). In total, more than 100 people have been found guilty of electoral malpractice in the UK since 1994. The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties. > The emergence of electoral fraud as an issue in UK politics cannot be divorced, therefore, from changes in electoral law since the 1990s, which introduced provisions for proxy voting and the widespread availability of postal voting. In particular, the introduction of ‘postal voting on demand’ via the Representation of the People Act 2000 created obvious opportunities for malpractice, especially when combined with a ‘rather arcane’ system of electoral registration. They go into more detail but I would suggest alleviating yourself of the notion that the current system isn't being tested by those looking for unfair advantage. If you read the Election Commission's views on these incidents you might come away thinking they were small things, yet it's also become easy to see they are not entirely fair nor are they fit for purpose. Bring on the improvements. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politician)#Channel_4_Dispatches_documentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politic... [3] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-back-together https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-bac... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-fine-electoral-spending https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-... [5] https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-extent-of-electoral-fraud-at-english-elections/ https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-exten...

ImaCake 5y ago

Don’t these kind of things happen whenever a war or pandemic happens? Showing your papers was important during WWI and WWII and I am aware of plenty of quarantines and mask mandates associated with previous cholera/TB/flu pandemics. Sure, I agree it sets a dangerous precedent, but we have been setting those kind of precedents for like 150 years. In that time we’ve had totalitarian states and liberal democracies.

bigDinosaur 5y ago
Yes, humanity has normalised many problematic things before. We've set many poor precedents. I don't disagree! The issue here is that vaccine passports currently have no medical justification but are persisting purely as a punishment (I'd say incentive, but anyone here who hasn't yet been vaccinated will never be swayed by vaccine passports at this point). I of course do expect these to go even in my fairly strict jurisdiction, but now the precedent of punishing people in this way has been set. Was quarantine, mask mandates, vaccine mandates used to punish people in this way previously?
- ImaCake 5y ago
  My close family circle is against the vaccine mandates now, as am I. Although we all supported them initially. So it is hard for me to gauge the general opinion on the mandates. I suspect support is waning fast with high vax rates and the reduced threat of COVID. I don’t think mask mandates punish in the same way as a vaccine mandate. You can change your mind and wear a mask instantly. A vaccine takes time and has greater consequences. Mask wearing is also an altruistic act; you put yourself through mild discomfort mostly to benefit those around you. It’s polite because it makes others feel more comfortable. A vaccine, especially when it comes to Omicron, protects you without really effecting risk of infection. So it’s more of a personal choice. Except at the population level where collective vaccine uptake have helped protect hospitals.
  - bigDinosaur 5y ago
    I think we're mostly in agreement. I mean, I did go and get vaccinated so the coercive measures did work on me, and I also wore a mask when I had to. But I really chafe at the notion that we haven't set a profound precedent in terms of governmental control over daily life, and a lot of people seem completely fine with all these mandates and vaccine passports. I find it kind of shocking, even though I'm pretty heavily pro-vaccine.

traceroute66 5y ago

> Where I live one is still required to present what amounts to an internal passport to do pretty much anything, despite not having any medical justification. Except the UK is an a joke in relation to vaccine passports. The politicians spout "authoritarian" "libertarian" bullshit as an excuse for not using vaccine passports. But then THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT is very happy indeed to introduce a requirement for people to produce ID when voting (Elections Bill). And yet somehow none of the same politicians make any mention of "authoritarian" or "libertarian" when it comes to mandating ID for voting. Or indeed we are talking about THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is busy trying very hard indeed to introduce laws to limit protests (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill). And THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT that is trying very hard indeed to bring in laws (Nationality and Borders Bill) enabling them to remove British citizenship from someone even if it renders them stateless. Its an absolute farce.

brigandish 5y ago
There are situations when it is appropriate to confirm one's identity. Going to the supermarket isn't one, and comparing it to voting - or any of the other situations vaccine passports were to be required - is a nonsense. I can agree with some of the other concerns you've listed, but if you're going to mix them in with reasonable actions by the government like protecting the integrity of elections, I wouldn't be surprised if those other concerns are undermined.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Protecting the integrity of elections that have all been shown to have very little fraud? Mass fraud without IDs being something of a pipe dream. That doesn’t make much sense.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    Aside from that being a different concern, even if we were to assume that is true, I don't see why it follows that election security shouldn't be improved. Regardless, election fraud has happened many times in the UK, most often from the politicians[1][2][3] (the links would be endless, I'll stop at three), and the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps[4]. However, an audit[5] was undertaken by Democratic Audit, who are funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (both are non-partisan), and here is what they found: > The emergence of evidence of electoral malpractice in English elections during the 2000s ranks among the most concerning emerging developments identified by this Audit. Evidence of malpractice began to mount from 2005 onwards, after an election court convened in Birmingham found five men guilty of large-scale electoral fraud, involving thousands of postal ballots, at local elections in June 2004. In his written judgement, the election commissioner, Richard Mawrey QC, referred to ‘evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.’ > While the Birmingham case represented the most systematic proven case of attempted ballot rigging, there have been numerous other convictions for electoral fraud in the UK since 2000. Court cases relating to large-scale fraud in local elections in Slough in 2007 and Peterborough in 2004 resulted in six convictions each. Following a lengthy police investigation and two re-trials, five men were eventually convicted in September 2010 for electoral fraud offences in the Bradford West constituency during the 2005 general election (the first relating to fraud in a UK general election for almost one hundred years). In total, more than 100 people have been found guilty of electoral malpractice in the UK since 1994. The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties. > The emergence of electoral fraud as an issue in UK politics cannot be divorced, therefore, from changes in electoral law since the 1990s, which introduced provisions for proxy voting and the widespread availability of postal voting. In particular, the introduction of ‘postal voting on demand’ via the Representation of the People Act 2000 created obvious opportunities for malpractice, especially when combined with a ‘rather arcane’ system of electoral registration. They go into more detail but I would suggest alleviating yourself of the notion that the current system isn't being tested by those looking for unfair advantage. If you read the Election Commission's views on these incidents you might come away thinking they were small things, yet it's also become easy to see they are not entirely fair nor are they fit for purpose. Bring on the improvements. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politician)#Channel_4_Dispatches_documentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politic... [3] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-back-together https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-bac... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-fine-electoral-spending https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-... [5] https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-extent-of-electoral-fraud-at-english-elections/ https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-exten...