“But – and I realise this will come to as a shock to a few in the Beehive and those who pander to them – our political elites do not get to define the boundaries of legitimate dissent… There is a qualitative difference between the theatre of protest and the real thing...”
"In all of the hyperventilating about the nature of those protesting, we haven’t confronted the dynamics of what is occurring, and why this is going to be difficult to resolve.
"Those who refuse the vaccines do so for a variety of complex reasons, but if you are willing to lose your career rather than take the jab, then we need to acknowledge that this belief is genuine, if mistaken."~ Damien Grant, from his column 'The Podium of Truth Has Shifted, and May Never Return'
Monday, 21 February 2022
"Our political elites do not get to define the boundaries of legitimate dissent..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with that statement - but surely the laws to protect citizens trying to go about their daily business, without streets being blocked and so on do somewhat define it. Civil disobedience might be justified when you're deliberately violating an unjust law to bring attention to the injustice (eg: Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus), but initiating new injustices against innocent businesses cannot be justified for any cause, so long as we still have the ability to seek correction via the election box.
Not a great comment to be quoting, Peter. In the case of the gene therapy jab (rather than a misnamed "vaccine"), the word belief implies thought without factual evidence. But we have evidence from the manufacturers' contracts with governments of the ineffectiveness and potential harm from the Comirnaty jab. Then Grant adds "if mistaken". Even if not mistaken, the choice is the individual's to make. The link didn't work, but this one did:
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/the-vexing-issue-of-damien-grants-career-ending-convictions/
Post a Comment