From the start I vigorously opposed Covid lockdowns and protested the hysteria that lures people to tolerate such tyranny.
Although I wasn’t the most eloquent of lockdowns’ critics, I – like Scott Atlas, David Henderson, Phil Magness, Jeffrey Tucker, Toby Young and the team at the Daily Sceptic, and the heroic authors of the great Great Barrington Declaration – never wavered from this opposition.
Not for a nanosecond did I as much as toy with the idea that lockdowns might be worthwhile. Every impulse within me, from my marrow to my mind, confidently informed me that lockdowns were destined to unleash Orwellian oppression, the terrible precedential consequences of which will plague (pun intended) humanity for decades.
Given all that we’ve learned since early 2020, I’m sad to say that my – and the relative handful of others’ – opposition to lockdowns and other Covid diktats was fully justified.
My blood still boils at the thought of lockdowns, and my anger at those persons who imposed them is as intense a sensation as I have ever experienced. It continues to be so.
I relate my early, unequivocal and unending opposition to lockdowns not to applaud myself. I do so, instead, to put into context the case that I’m about to make in opposition to any and all calls for attempts to impose formal liability or sanctions on those individuals who inflicted lockdowns on humanity, or who were prominently positioned to encourage their use. I believe that attempts to hold lockdowners personally accountable by imposing on them formal punishments would create yet another terrible precedent, one that would only compound the troubles that we’re destined to suffer from the precedent that was set in March 2020.
Before explaining my opposition to attempts at imposing formal punishments on lockdowners, I note that my argument isn’t about forgiveness. While a case can be made to forgive lockdowners, that’s not the case that I’ll make here. Forgiveness, being personal, is beyond my capacity to recommend or to oppose. To forgive or not is exclusively your call. My argument here is simply a plea to my fellow anti-lockdowners not to call for, or even to wish for, the imposition of state-imposed sanctions on prominent lockdowners.
Nor do I oppose formal hearings that aim to expose the truth about the Covid-era actions of Government officials. While I worry that such hearings will, like Covid policies themselves, be infected with excessive politics and misunderstanding of science, as long as such hearings threaten no formal punishments or sanctions on officials found to have acted wrongly, the likelihood that such hearings will unearth and publicise important truths is high enough to warrant their occurrence.
Perhaps ironically, one reality that leads me to oppose formal efforts to sanction lockdowners for their infliction of harm is a reality that plays a prominent role in my opposition to the lockdowns themselves – namely, political action is inherently untrustworthy. Summoning Government today to penalise officials who imposed lockdowns is to call for action by the very same political institution, if not the same flesh-and-blood officials, that imposed the lockdowns.
The danger is too great that a Government agency or commission empowered to sit in judgement over individuals who were in office during the two years starting in March 2020 will abuse its power. The risk is too high that the pursuit of justice will descend into a hunt for revenge. No such agency or commission will act with the requisite objectivity to make its decisions just. To suppose that any such formal inquiry into personal guilt or liability would be adequately apolitical is as fanciful as supposing that lockdown-happy officials in 2020 were adequately apolitical.
In this imperfect world of ours, officials who were responsible for pursuing even horribly destructive policies yesterday are best left immune to being formally punished or sanctioned by officials who are in power today. The dangers of empanelling tribunals to punish recently dethroned officials for their policy choices include, but go beyond, the above-mentioned risk of today’s officials pursuing revenge rather than justice.
An equally fearful danger springs from the reality that almost every significant change in policy can be portrayed by its opponents as an unwarranted assault on humanity. Because real-world complexities will always enable opponents of the challenged policy to muster some ‘evidence’ of extensive damage that the policy allegedly caused, empanelling tribunals today to punish officials whose policy choices were implemented yesterday will, going forward, discourage not only the active taking of bad policies, but also the active taking of good policies.
And the disproportionate attention that the public (and politicians) pay to the seen at the expense of the unseen makes it likely, in my view, that the discouragement of good policy moves would be much greater than the discouragement of bad policy moves.
Suppose that a precedent is set that encourages those in political power today to persecute, with charges of having pursued harmful policies, individuals who held political power yesterday. Further suppose that when COVID-28 hits, officials then in power wisely follow the advice offered in the Great Barrington Declaration. I have no doubt that choosing this policy course would minimise deaths. But no policy will completely avoid deaths. COVID-28 will indeed kill some, perhaps many, people.
When COVID-28 is finally over and a new political party takes power, there’s nothing to prevent the new party from empanelling a tribunal to hold those officials previously in power personally responsible for the deaths that occurred on their watch when COVID-28 raged – deaths that will be blamed on what will be said to be the reckless following of Great Barrington Declaration guidance.
While such a tribunal might be made to appear akin to an ordinary court of law following the same rules of procedure, evidence and proof that operate in ordinary courts, the reality is that any such tribunal would be a political body. Each such tribunal would be used, above all, as a forum for the politically ascendant to publicly flaunt what they and their compatriots are certain is their moral superiority over the degenerates now in the dock.
A task almost as important for the individuals prosecuting such ‘trials’ would be to damage as much as possible the future electoral prospects of the party with which most of the accused are associated. Each proceeding would be incurably and poisonously political, as would each finding, verdict and sentence. If such a tribunal were ever to mete out true justice, it would be only by pure chance.
As satisfying as it would be for me to see the likes of Neil Ferguson, Anthony Fauci, and (thankfully now former) Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison behind bars – as gratifying as it would be to know that Deborah Birx and Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer are bankrupted by hefty fines, while Justin Trudeau and former British cabinet minister Matt Hancock are confined for years to house arrest – that satisfaction and gratification would be swamped by fear of the actions of future tribunals.
This price is far too high to pay.
By all means we must hold accountable any and all officials who broke the law. If any lockdowners are credibly believed to have committed actual criminal offences, then those individuals should be arrested and tried, under a presumption of innocence, in proper courts of law.
Similar treatment should apply to officials accused of committing civil violations. But also, and above all, the court of public opinion should remain in session and vigilant. In this court, I will continue, whenever appropriate opportunities arise, to be both an active prosecutor of those who fuel Covid hysteria and authoritarianism, and an active defender of those who resist this hysteria and authoritarianism.
I will also, however, steadfastly oppose any attempts to hold Covidocrats personally liable for their inexcusable policy actions taken in 2020 and 2021. To go down such a road of holding personally guilty or liable those officials whose policy decisions turn out to be mistaken would be a one-way trip down a rocky road to a treacherous destination.
Donald J. Boudreaux is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He writes at Café Hayek. This article was first published at AIER and the Brownstone Institute.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is all based on the premise that all along the way, honest mistakes were made by all concerned, including about the mass “vaccinations” (which are as far as I am concerned all part of “lockdowns” – and interesting to note the author here makes no mention of vaxxing). Believe that if you want; I don’t. If the tribunals to establish the truth find that lies were knowingly told, those responsible should be held to account.
I was just about to respond with something similar. I’m wondering if the author would make the same argument about the injections. The amount of people dead and harmed due to the hugely disproportionate, unethical yet effective ( and very expensive! ) PsyOp that the UK was put through, the mandates for healthcare staff and threats to their livelihoods, so that they had to have a jab purely under duress, the lies we were all told about “taking one for the team” because it was meant to stop transmission etc. Couldn’t the author use this same argument for the ‘vaccine’ injured never getting justice?
People died both directly and indirectly from lockdowns and certainly many have and are still dying and becoming disabled or getting health issues for life ( heart damage springs to mind ) as a result of being psychologically bullied into submission into receiving these shots that they didn’t even need and there must be accountability and justice. People cannot get off Scott free with ruining people’s lives just because one feels “swamped by fear of the actions of future tribunals.”
I don’t know why the author doesn’t mention the mass vaxxing – perhaps constraints of space or perhaps he feels “lockdowns” is a shorthand for all of the “anti-covid” measures taken, or perhaps he believes the “vaccines” are a separate issue, or perhaps he doesn’t want to be seen as “anti-vaxx”. I am somewhat suspicious of anyone who doesn’t mention the “vaccines” – even if you believe that they “worked” in some limited fashion, the way in which they were pushed on people is so obviously evil that you cannot avoid condemning it if you want any credibility.
Yes perhaps he will be along with a comment in response to us in due course so as to clarify or expand a bit more on this. Because I don’t see how you can have one stance for lockdowns and a different stance for the damage the mass jabbing has done, and is still continuing to do of course. I think we all on here now recognise that the trampling on our civil liberties en masse was just phase 1 in prepping us for receiving these clot shots. They needed the masses to be as scared, confused and desperate for a way out ( and remember when Johnson and his international counterparts heralded the vax as “our way out of the pandemic”? That didn’t age well! ) as possible so they could get max uptake for these gene therapies, all the while lying that they were necessary to protect your grandparents/vulnerable neighbours/elderly patients etc etc. It’s all been pure lies, corruption and manipulation, with a hefty dose of abuse of human rights/medical ethics since the start of 2020, and it continues. We are just moving through the phases of The Plan now.
We have parallel mind sets Mogwai ! You save me making loads of posts
Spot on as usual !
Thank you kindly wor Freddy.
Not surprisingly me and thee have reached the same conclusions Mogs.
Yeah, we’re on the same page finally.
Savage Jabbit always springs to the forefront of my mind with his call to arms ( pun unintended ) for the sacking of Jab opposed health care workers ! My blood is still boiling on that particular sanction !!…
A disgusting act of pure evil still not compensated.
Yes, ‘obviously evil’. Well put.
All rather academic anyway. Covid folly & evil was just a more extreme/noticeable manifestation of trends and activities that had been growing over decades, and whatever the verdict in the short term over covid isn’t really of much significance given that the woke, warmongering globalist technocrats have their hands on the levers of power and continue to destroy civilisation as we have known it.
Held to account & then given the full William Wallace treatment ! ( WW was probably a better man btw )
So for a planned scamdemic that ruined civilisation, with Stabs that have murdered and injured millions worldwide, with vials full of junk and poisons including potentially nanobots, the disregard of the Nuremburg Code, 6 (or is 600) bio-‘ethics’ treaties signed, in contravention of secular, moral, natural and constitutional laws, I am supposed to expect no revenge?
Flock off. Hang every one of the bastards. And when they try round 2 – pre-emptively do the same.
Well said. The perpetrators at the top knew DAMN WELL what they were doing, and thus should NOT be allowed to plead ignorance or “just following orders”. Fie upon them!
Whilst respectfully regocnising the basis for the article, I disagree with this proposal for the following reasons:
1/ The underlying milieu so heavily favours the politicians, technocrats, social and other media, judiciary, et al, that the victims of Covid policy ( those killed, maimed, sacked, depersoned, destroyed by vaccines or lockdowns) have all the odds of justice stacked against them.
2/ The level of harm done to all accepted norms of public health, the Nuremberg code, the medical profession, “faith” in political process and in bureaucracy are so great, that there needs to be a strong disincentive for future policy makers to follow the Covid pathway.
I agree with your comment. The other issue that is not mentioned in the article is that while formal Inquiries can be useful for future improvements, they would be undermined by the threat of prosecution. That is to say, many organisations and individuals would want to be granted immunity to prosecution before they would open their mouths at all, which would contradict the proper process of the Inquiries.
It may be that lots of organisations, that are supposedly there to serve the public, have lost their reputation with the general public, when they realise what has happened. That will be their punishment, at least financially.
Do you think they care about loss of reputation? What difference will it make to them?
Personally, I’d be quite happy if every single one of them was swinging from a gallows.
But I’d be satisfied if they are all hounded out of public life forever …. so they can never again wield such destructive power.
Because it hasn’t ended. At the G20 the Despots agreed to implement a Global form of Vaccine Surveillance in order to prevent the “unvaccinated” from travelling. If you won’t participate in their mass medical experiment, you will be discriminated against.
Forgive and forget? Never.
Indeed it has not ended. Certain aspects have ended, or appear to have done, but there’s been no general admission it was a mistake and crucially the mass vaxxing continues. Not to mention all the other assaults on freedom and truth being made in other areas. Covid was not some aberration that was out of character – it’s entirely in keeping with what has been happening for decades.
Indeed, and that is precisely why they MUST be held accountable. Yesterday. Otherwise, they will just move on to Round 2, aka Climate Lockdowns.
The UK Fires Absolute Zero report is proposing that all UK airports and shipping lines are eventually closed, effectively imprisoning us.
See pages 6 and 7:
https://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf
Looks like the collective plans are for everyone to be ‘vax’d’, certificated, probably chipped – then on a road to nowhere…if it’s further than 15 miles from home.
Yes they’re certainly putting their ducks in a row aren’t they? Here’s Robert Malone talking about the digital health passport in this 10min segment;
https://rumble.com/v1va2om-dr.-robert-malone-discusses-the-covid-vaccines-and-digital-health-passports.html
100% agree ellie. There are some on here that need to be doing more research. The walk on the road to hell has only just started.
Exactly & for that latest reason they are guilty as charged ! There are no grey areas . Plain & Simple – They know what they are doing ! Oh to have been standing on that G 2 0 table wearing my finest Hob nails & swinging one of Babe Ruth’s finest would have evened up my sense of justice !
Yes, that is the main problem…the article talks as though this has ended..of course nothing much has changed, and they are still determined to re-visit these things on us ad infinitum..they’ll just change their tactics.
In the UK today, pregnant women and children are still being vaccinated with a concoction that, by every metric we have, is dangerous to them…and I could go on and on about the harms lockdowns have done and will continue to do, particularly to young people and their mental health….there cannot be any forgiveness..but equally we can’t just forget it either….
As others have mentioned, particularly in relation to the G20 and the WHO…it appears to me that we are in a total war against these power-mad psychos.
It’s gone way beyond ‘courts’ and ‘tribunals’ in my opinion…we need rid of the lot of them….
The orgy of violence that followed the French Revolution didn’t solve anything, and it ended up feeding on itself.
This needs to be busted wide open and very publicly. But calling for hangings helps nobody and actually following through on this would put all of us in the wrong
Gallows would be too kind. Solitary confinement would be far more poetic justice. Just for “two weeks”, of course, and then keep on moving the goalposts…
I think he makes a worthwhile point, if I understand it correctly: The courts are there for genuine malfeasance. For us non-lawyers, the Court of Public Opinion should be the focus and, in that court, getting angry tends to be counterproductive.
If we can win in the court of public opinion, having the likes of Dr Fauci being ridiculed and his pronouncements ignored would still be quite a punishment, even if it turns out he didn’t do anything actually illegal.
It’s only worthwhile if you subscribe to cock-up theory. That theory seems a bit threadbare to me these days.
Yes even Toby is seeing through the wood to the trees!
Cockiest happen singly and severally, when they are multiple and serial = conspiracy.
Should be cockups- for some reason it won’t let me edit.
I think you’ll find that he did & has been for decades , we are taught that Mengele was the most heinous Doctor but Fauci has had a bigger pool to play in !
Aren’t crimes against Humanity, Human Rights abuse, child abuse, enforced experimental medical treatment ‘malfeasance’?
what about all those who have been murdered ? who speaks for them ?
The government has enthusiastically signed up to the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty which empowers the WHO to impose pandemic healthcare policy upon signatory nations. This cowardly outsourcing of political responsibility should be declared unconstitutional (as should most of the other globalist agreements that have been signed to tie us down, without debate).
I declare it unconstitutional. Is that okay for you?
So they can shrug their shoulders & say “ nothing to do with me “ Tedros the Terra wist will be king ! Do me a favour
And let’s not forget who founded the WHO: Alger Hiss, the aptly named snake in the grass.
More articles like this please. Baying for revenge does not lead to utopian pastures, it just continues the cycle of division. History shows the trothing mouths and spittle chins screaming for ”justice” today, will become the oppressors of all our freedom tomorrow. Wherever there is division we should aim towards reconciliation.
Punishing criminals isn’t about revenge, it’s about deterring criminal behaviour and keeping criminals from committing more crimes while they are in prison.
So the majority of western society are criminals in your eyes?
I don’t know. I struggle to believe that a significant number of senior figures globally did not knowingly lie – the evidence seems pretty strong to me. But criminal guilt remains to be established, and it almost certainly won’t be for obvious reasons.
I’m not sure what you mean by “majority of Western society”. My main concern is the decision makers, the people at the top. Many others IMO probably knowingly colluded in the folly&evil, “only following orders”. There are so many that punishing them all is probably impractical.
I struggle to believe that 99.9% of people, likely more, do not knowingly lie. And when the lie they believe they are doing it for the good. I’ve become isolated from most “right thinking” people for my views on covid and I’m prepared to do the same with people who shared those views in the name of truth. I see no difference in what you appear to advocate as the people who demand reparations for slavery. You are not going to put the gas back in the bottle.
A majority of people supported lockdowns and vaccine rollout. They were wrong, and their behaviour led others to feel coerced. My mother felt she had to be vaxxed. Not because of government propaganda but because of the pressure from wider society to do the right thing. Unfortunately not a lot of people appear to know what the “right thing” is and will be led. That is an ancient dilemma, not a new one. As is “the people at the top”.
I’m not sure that saying “Well, I lied, but it was for the greater good” is really much of a defence against criminal charges. Anyway, I think if the saw all the evidence, most of which has probably been destroyed or never existed because conversations were not recorded, I doubt we’d see that much of what was done could possibly be interpreted as being for the greater good.
As for slavery, that was a long time ago. The perpetrators of the covid scam are still in charge, vaxxing kids.
So by your rational a thing stops being wrong by the passing of time?
If all evidence is destroyed, the whole thing would be futile anyway. Why sqaunder the only true currency, time and attention, bleating on about it?
By my rationale it’s hard/pointless to bring criminal prosecutions centuries after the perpetrators have died. Anyway, you were talking about reparations, not sure why they are relevant in this discussion.
We don’t know if all evidence is destroyed – I think we should try to find out.
You seem to be doing as much “bleating” as the rest of us here.
I do bleat. It wasn’t as moral judgement, just a fact. Go find the evidence, spend your time not on forum’s bleating but uncovering the criminal conspiracy you believe so fervently in.
The first priority is to continue to oppose the kind of thinking that led us to covid madness and that continues to lead us to “vaccinate” children, censor anyone expressing scepticism about “net zero”, generally increase surveillance and restrict freedom, pursue wars for dubious reasons etc etc. Each in our own small or large way. That’s about the best we can hope for.
I think what your advocating here is the kind of thinking that did lead to covid madness. I agree all lies should be pushed back upon. We are not going to stop the thing that’s happened from happening. We all need to live together in some reasonable form of peace. I’m against pogroms in any form.
People cited Nuremberg trials lots of times during the lockdown years, forgetting these were show trials and a pressure release valve. Another instrument of propaganda. Many high ranking Nazi’s were shipped away under intelligence programs such as operation paper clip.
My central point is man’s justice is as imperfect as man is. How are we even capable of pulling together a fair and just trial for these people without a clear understanding of who is guilty of what and without evidence to support our charges? Even then the true directors of this dwell inside inner rings that we will never see.
As I say the ideal purports to be high minded, but the fact is we are not good judges.
What should we do to get rid of our sense of injustice?
Look after ourselves and our families, build communities, exchange ideas, protect each other and call out one another when we are acting wrongly. Try to live in truth. Place time between feeling and action. Use that time to think. All of these ideas if permeated would have a greater benefit to all men than another show trial, run by the perpetrators of the “crimes”.
John Lennon said it well: “Love is the answer, And you know that for sure, Love is the power, you gotta let it, you gotta let it grow.”
Don’t let it die on the vine.
Thanks for the debate TofF. Got to get on with the day now. Keep well brother.
Likewise
Conspiracy you say !
& pregnant Women FFS !!!
It seems like it atm !
jabbing children with something they don’t benefit from is the most serious crime and has been practised throughout the west.
“Wherever there is division we should aim towards reconciliation”. What a fantastic thought. We should hold hands with the Nazi’s, hug members of the Klu Klux chan, shake hands with sex traffickers and paedophiles, because, you know, we don’t want “division”. Your moral compass is broken.
No its not, but yours is. Your won’t be satisfied until you are swimming in the blood of the damned and what will that make you?
Hmmm. A rather infantile response, one I’ll ignore. Instead I’ll ask you the same question in a more direct way… what “division”, what evil, would you NOT forgive? Where do you draw your line? Obviously not state-driven discrimination of a certain group, or the mandating of an experimental drug – you believe breaches of the Nuremburg code is fine, nor people losing their livelihoods, marriages and children because they didn’t conform to the states definition of a ‘good citizen’, nor the murder of children. So what is it? Where is your line?
You also seem to make zero distinction between the naive and ignorant members of the public, and the malevolent forces forcing into an authoritarian hell. I haven’t read any of your posts before, so I’ll reserve judgement, but you appear to be excusing the whole debacle. Strange sentiments.
Beginning with an ad hominem followed by a non-sequitur is a poor way to debate. You have fallen back on two logical fallacies in your first sentence.
I would try to forgive all that I could, because forgiveness is not a gift given to others but a coming to terms within yourself.
Where did I advocate state driven anything? I called myself an anarchist until about 6 months ago (difficult to put timeframes on these things). I’m not really a fan of the state.
I couldn’t care less about a code invented by men that will eventually crumble into dust like men themselves and all their marvellous creations.
I cannot see I have advocated any of the things you say I advocate, so I see little point in defending myself.
You keep creating your straw men and argue away with them.
Ahhh, now you show yourself. Now I see you. Now I know who you are. One of the many destroying society with narcissistic beliefs and your victim card ownership.
You don’t appear to understand what a strawman argument is. I posed no strawman argument, but asked you a simple question about where your line for forgiveness lies. A question you did not even attempt to answer. You didn’t answer it as you know the question exposed your own muddled thinking.
Anyway, I know you people can never be placated or reasoned with, so will not bother to try.
nonsense. A totalitarian strategy is being followed. Sitting on the fence is not possible.
“Baying for revenge does not lead to utopian pastures, it just continues the cycle of division.”
Many want revenge, myself included, but absolute justice will suffice. To not seek justice is to walk away from our responsibilities and insults all those who have been injured and murdered during these last 2.5 years. Let us not forget these injections are still being pushed (pun I know) and God help us even at our children. The war is far from over.
To be absolutely blunt, to not seek justice is cowardice and represents a disgraceful failure of our humanity.
Hi Piggles, Hope you’re doing well on this fine day.
I am not advocating, as some have suggested that we just forget the whole thing, sweep it under the rug, hold hands with the nazi’s and the Klu Klux Klan, shake hands with peadophiles (or vote them in as president) Marry a sex offender or scrape our eyes out and offer them up as a tribute to Baal.
I am not cowering in the corner and say lets just leave it, its not worth it. I just think we all need to calm down a bit and he coherent rather than grab out metaphorical pitch forks (or real ones depending on nones strength of feeling). Absolute justice is not something man can provide. I’m guessing you mean capital punishment though, right?
So what are you asking for? You want to sanction the state, which enabled all this nasty business in the first place, to have the authority to kill those who we think did us wrong. Doesn’t seem like the best idea to me.
Or you want the state to have a inquiry and punish the wrongdoers in another way. In which case what are you asking for? Heads on spikes.
How long then until your head is on its own spike, because you and many others on this forum appear to be advocating that sort of justice would make the world a better place. What if your opinions, like mine here now, suddenly don’t chime with the mob.
Here are a few things we can all do in my opinion to improve our lot. But I can guarantee most people would balk at number one and then make excuses all the way down the list citing that their actions would not make a difference.
1) Get rid of your smart phone.
2) Don’t spend money (as best as owner can avoid it) on Amazon, Tesla, Apple, Meta etc.
3) Go out in the local community and talk to your neighbours.
4) Get off all social media.
5) Read physical books.
6) Buy local from different independent businesses and producers.
7) Get out ands stay out of debt.
8) Don’t take drugs, drink only in moderation.
9) Pray, build a relationship with God (my no 1 but I understand that is not going to chime with everyone, the most beneficial act on the list IMO)
10) Place thought between feeling and action always.
When I say what I say, its not because I’m a contrarian (although I am). I think of the truth and reconciliation committees in Rwanda after the genocide or South Africa after apartheid. Real nasty business. Where vicious violence was meted out quite publicly. These people had to find some way to move forward and live together. The crimes were so enormous and widespread that the victims understood justice would never be achieved through a cumbersome bureaucracy, and killing people in the streets was kind of why they were there in the first place.
It’s not my message anyway. If you don’t like it pray to god and get the law changed.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Matthew 5:38-42
…magic mushrooms, or wacky baccy? LOL!!
Failing or refusing to seek justice is utterly cowardly and an insult to all those murdered and maimed. You don’t agree and that’s all there is to it.
Our World Health Organisation has overseen the biggest crime perpetrated against humanity in medical history. It needs to be destroyed, and anyone complicit convicted.
I do think these people need to be punished because without a trial and those found guilty being prosecuted it allows that crimes against humanity, which is after all what these people are to be accused of, should never be punished, therefore there is no justice for those who have been injured, and it signals that those who are part of the Government and elite can authorise and enact inhumanity and murder with impunity.
The N—s were prosecuted via the Nuremberg trials, Mussolini and his followers experienced justice of a more direct nature.
I agree a tribunal operated by a Government is not acceptable, what needs to happen is a Nuremberg 2 where all such criminals as Johnson, Hancock, Javid, Farrar, Whitty and the others in this country we all know who they are, and across other countries, Fauci, Collins, Biden, Trudeau, Arden, Andrews etc along with the heads of Pfizer, Moderna, and AZ are tried for crimes agaisnt humanity and Genocide.
It is the only way to bring closure to this most terrible chapter in human history, it is the only way to bring reconciliation throughout the world of the people who suffered under this regime, and it sends a strong signal to any future leaders who might aspire to the same level of power. Why should there be no come back for people who have directed and overseen the suffering, misery and death of millions for what was no more than a cold to over 99% of the worlds population.
I don’t know where to start with this. At the heart of this flawed logic lies the belief that justice should not be pursued because that same justice may be used in the future for political gain. Although I appreciate Donald’s thoughts, I must confess that I find the rationale to be feint-hearted.
My soul understands justice. It matters not to me how that justice is served, whether it be legally or socially driven. What I will not do, never even contemplate, is not seek retribution for fear of the echelons of law being misused politically. Surely, given that logic, the pursuit of justice should never be taken? We should simply turn a blind eye to evil because, well, that evil may come for us at some point. Well it already came. And some of us stood our ground. We didn’t do that because of the “what ifs” – that was left to the people who kowtowed to political or peer pressure and now regret their actions – we did that because we knew it was the right thing to do. Scientifically, medically and, more importantly than anything, morally.
The last couple of years has been as much a test of our mortality than it has our resilience. Donald is wrong because it is decency that guides us, not fear.
You echo my sentiments….
I think we all know that in reality nothing will be done, don’t we..? They are already planning the next phase…we can only stand our ground, together…and hope that more people are now awake to the agenda…
mortalitymoralityThere are covid fools and there are covid criminals.
I agree that the covid fools should not be punished – ridiculed perhaps, reminded of their folly, but not formally punished. As has been pointed out, a witch-hunt against fools will lead down a very ugly path. (And we are all fools at some time or another.)
The criminals are a different matter. And make no mistake, a great deal of what has gone on has been criminal. And I am confident that were there to be a full investigation the actions of very many of the protagonists of this shitshow will be shown to have been criminal.
The criminals should be dealt with through the full force of the law.
It’s all very simple really.
Absolutley! Especially as those criminals have inflicted torture on us, which breaks the Geneva Convention & torture is a war crime. We are at war while the torture is ongoing, it is, as such in a war one is entitled to self defense.
All food for thought.
Yes, however the full force of the law is now meaningless. Our roads are being disrupted daily by illegal protests, and the few arrested are let off. The entire nation is being overrun by illegal aliens who by definition break the law just landing here, and we put them in 4 star hotels. The full force of the law is weighted fully and forcefully against the taxpayers who pay for the machinery of enforcement.
There is a world of difference between doing the best you can in uncertain times, and junking your pandemic preparedness plan at the first moment, jumping into the unknown with both feet and refusing to attempt any kind of cost-benefit analysis.
So no, in this case I do not think they should get an amnesty.
Anybody who still thinks that this was essentially about well-meaning people making mistakes is an imbecile.
So according to you, hitler or any other dictator gets a let off?
My my
What a crock of over-written waffle.
We knew from the Diamond Princess (3,700 passengers and crew, only 700 got sick, only 7 died – all elderly) before any lockdown was enacted that cvd19 was harmless to all except the extreme frail-elderly and already terminally ill.
Spiegelhalter’s analysis of the early death certificates in Apr-20 confirmed that picture.
Ioannidis reported in Sep-20 that the global case-fatality-rate was 0.2%, and 0.01% for fit-and-well people aged under 65,
Cvd19, unless you were very old or chronically seriously ill, was therefore one tenth as virulent as seasonal flu.
Lockdowns were done to clear the path for vaccine coercion. Gates invested $10 billion for a return of $200 billion. Everyone who supported lockdown and forced-jabbing has taken a cut.
Don’t tell me they should be let off. Let them give back the money and repent.
Personally, Lockdowns, Medications, the new tax regime, travel passes, possibly UBI in the future along with CBDC were/are not honest mistakes. This is a clear path to tyranny and control (and arguably genocide/Democide).
The ONLY way this can be stopped and prevented from happening again to us is for those responsible – those who most of us trust to manage our “civilisation” while we get on with living, is to ensure that these people face their Ceausescu moment. What that looks like – with public scaffolds or something more chaotic, I’m not sure. But history has shown us time and time again that this is the only way to protect our Freedom.
“People should not be afraid of their Governments, Governments should be afraid of the People.”
They are afraid which is why they are F ing us up !!
If I’ve got the jist of this article then the professor is saying that he believes it is dangerous for the poljtical establishment to investigate its own actions because it eould be a witch-hunt that could be used in future by any party to demonise and criminalise any bad policy decisions or any political opposition.
We have had bad policies for years and, with the exception of blair and the Iraq war, there have been few, if any, calls to prosecute politicians for their decisions. What we’ve seen over the past 2 to 3 years is not simply bad policy. The refusal of government and health agencies to even acknowledge the death and injury from the jabs, as evidenced by their own data, is not bad policy, it is serious malfeasance and possibly criminal. The same goes for the destruction of the economy, education, and health of the nation, all based on a lie as evidenced by the political classes flouting their own rules because theyknew it was a lie.
To argue that justice must be denied because the system is so corrupt it cannot be trusted to act fairly is no excuse for letting these people off. We must find those who will act justly and not be put off by the difficult but vital task of bringing about accountability and, where appropriate, justice. Let them get away with this one and it will be much worse next time.
I don’t doubt the validity of not prosecuting the criminals in charge during the first couple of years of the Scamdemic – and the term of the criminal season itself would need to be determined – by a new administration which claims innocence. However, this little difficulty can be resolved by recruiting volunteer prosecuters known to be anti lockdown from the start. There are certainly many exceedingly intelligent members here on DS who I am sure would willingly step forward to offer their services as prosecutors.
That removes the first objection.
On the issue of prosecution itself is the author declaring that the Nuremberg trials were wrong and should never have taken place? That is a rather conceited position to hold is it not? Is he suggesting we turn a blind eye to the horrors and deaths this nation has been subjected to and are still being forced to endure?
It is difficult not to conclude that this is a request for amnesty by the back door which is tantamount to suggesting that when Billy releases his next “pandemic” as promised, we will be forced to tolerate similar diabolical treatments.
There is also implicit within this article the view that much of what we were subjected to was down to cock-up. No it damn well wasn’t.
Naiively the author also fails to recognise that the Scamdemic was only phase one, the opening battle, in the push to install a new world order. The Reset seeks to impose a one world government which will determine how the masses live, those they have not culled that is. The masses will be enslaved and will exist simply to ensure that the elites can live the lives they believe is their due.
The article is a massive failure and quite how the author ended up as such an early opponent of the regime is baffling.
DS needs to balance this piece with an opposing commentary because there certainly is a case for prosecuting those guilty of appalling evil. Sadly this is unlikely to happen because our ‘establisment’ has been captured wholesale and the war continues.
You cannot be serious!
So, Nuremberg and Tokyo war trials shouldn’t have been held?
What was done in the name of ‘pandemic’ is a crime against Humanity. If it’s not punished then they will keep doing it.
Moral Hazard: when those in Office or bureaucracies know there is no personal cost and consequences for their action.
See!
Epoch Times: “Leaders of the Group of 20 (G20) have issued a joint declaration promoting a global standard on proof of vaccination for international travel and calling for the establishment of “global digital health networks” that build on existing digital COVID-19 vaccine passport schemes.
I understand but disagree with his point- I’d still take the risk.
But this discussion is academic and futile anyway.
These people are in power and they have rigged the system, including the judiciary, for many decades to come- punishment is totally unrealistic.
What really matters now is fighting Osterism and, above all, fighting them and their authoritarian plans for our future, little by little, step by step, at every occasion and for as long as it takes.
Fortunately, Danielle Smith does not seem to agree, starting by giving some the Icahn treatment. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/11/17/albertas-danielle-smith-boots-health-authority-board-people-will-hold-us-to-account.html
“As satisfying as it would be for me to see the likes of Neil Ferguson, Anthony Fauci, and (thankfully now former) Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison behind bars – as gratifying as it would be to know that Deborah Birx and Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer are bankrupted by hefty fines, while Justin Trudeau and former British cabinet minister Matt Hancock are confined for years to house arrest”
Fined, Jailed, house arrest? No, I would like to see them suspended from the end of 3/4 inch hemp, placed between 3 and 4 cervical vertebrae level. And don’t forget the scum in the media like Piers Morgan, Andrew Neil and that vacuous narcissistic TV doctor whose name escapes me.
And as they swung too and fro, faces turning black and legs kicking, I would whistle a merry tune and dance a merry jig. But what ever happens, I will never forgive and never forget.
We really need a 2020s version of Tyler Durden! The trash that inflicted lockdowns on us run the country and the judicial system, so there’ll never be any punishment. That will be for historians. Already the Powers That Be are orchestrating a kind of societal amnesia and gaslighting trick to convince people that the repressive society we now live in is what we had before lockdowns. Even Matt Hancock’s being allowed to rehabilitate himself on a trashy reality TV show!
We really need trials and restoration of the death penalty, along with a take-down of global banks such as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. The UN needs abolition: it should be possible to run a basic talking shop out of one office in Geneva and get rid of all the other buildings and all the other agencies. Won’t happen: we’re in the era of giant organisations – a conspiracy between economic neo-liberals and cultural Marxists – to run a collectivist system where they’re the shepherds and we’re the sheep to be penned and injected with whatever drugs they see fit.
I can’t forgive, because on top of everything else, the NHS’s ban on eye surgery in their hospitals – even private surgeons where I live have to use the NHS facilities – meant my Dad’s retina operation was delayed by six months and the surgery a couple of weeks ago failed because the wait was too long. He’s now blind in one eye. I just can’t forgive that.
There’s a whole utopian, globalist apparatus that has already almost entirely turned the planet into a vast prison camp. The internet is under surveillance and professionally thin-skinned woke-ists are its collaborator guards. Satellites were meant to allow us to know more about the way the planet works and to keep an eye on movements of our enemies: now they’re used by countries to spy their own fellow citizens. You can’t walk out of your house and down your street without being observed. Your face has been recorded on shop cameras and is accessible globally.
What matters now is organising a diaspora. If it’s a given that many of us will never accept or cooperate with a giant security state, surveillance society, we have to be allowed to move somewhere where we can be free. It’s clear from the lockdowns that many people love living in a high tax, heavily-policed, heavy-surveillance, cashless society. But those of us who can’t… won’t live that way are going to be a perpetual thorn in the globalists’ side. Better we’re allowed to establish our own group of free countries out of the way somewhere on the planet. The globalist media can then pretend we don’t exist and not report on us. It’s win-win for everyone then… as long as China and the West don’t nuke us or deliberately infect us with a killer virus as soon as we all get there!
Damn right. Well said.
DonkeyKongPingPong – well done for coming on this thread and ‘speaking truth to power’, ie challenging the general pro-vengeance consensus.
The frequently personally unpleasant reactions to your perfectly reasonably expressed points of view shows that the whole punishment ethic is simply an excuse to lash out at and oppress others.
The spiritual-moral code is simple – two wrongs don’t make a right.
There is an almost infinite range of ways to resist present and future harmful actions without engaging in personal abuse or retaliation – in the case of Covid tyranny and economic devastation that could include full and open inquiries, protective legislation, politicians being voted out, the general removal from posts and / or sanctioning those who had engaged in deliberate financial corruption, falsification of figures etc, payments of compensation to those most negatively affected etc.
In this whole area of responsibility allocation and restitution it is crucial to bare in mind that the vast majority of people n the UK (and elsewhere) supported these highly destructive policies.
Above all, as in every other area of human existence, the focus should 100% be on future prevention rather than an illusory attempt to fix the past – which cannot be done.
The whole idea of punishment – the deliberate infliction of harm by way of revenge – fails on its own internal logic, never mind the eternal ethical law.
The argument is that human beings have a right to inflict deliberate suffering (eg the deprivation of liberty via incarceration up to capital punishment / murder) on those they deem to have themselves inflicted deliberate suffering on others.
Now given human beings’ lack of both comprehensive observational. knowledge and comprehensive moral self-control to prevent prejudice creeping in it is inevitable that individuals will be falsely accused, found guilty, then punished for things they have not done.
So using punishment’s own internal logic and terminology, ‘innocent’ people will have been deliberately harmed; therefore all those supporting and carrying out these harmful acts should themselves be deliberately harmed by way of retaliation.
In other words if the punishment ethic was ever to be carried out consistently it would result in the near immediate self-imprisonment of entire populations.
By sheer coincidence, a bit like the Coronavirus nationwide lockdowns.
In reality the punishment based concept of revenge is irrational, pointless, used wildly selectively and inconsistently, and just another excuse for man’s mistreatment of man.
The reason you imprison or otherwise punish criminals is to deter them/others and keep them off the streets for a while to stop them committing more crimes, and also to signal to society that certain things are wrong and will be sanctioned. Who said anything about “vengeance”?
Yes lots of people supported lockdowns etc and still do, IMO in part because they were and are being lied to by powerful people. Those powerful people, if found to have been lying, should be held to account.
You mention future prevention. One way to do that is to make the powerful worried that they could be punished of caught in criminal acts.
The reason you imprison or otherwise punish criminals is to deter them/others and keep them off the streets for a while to stop them committing more crimes,
First of all you have set up an imaginary category of negatively inclined human beings called ‘criminals’. We all both have done and possess the continuing capacity to harm others, whatever our legal history or status.
Furthermore as indicated in my last post all manmade legal systems are wildly selective blunt instruments, with vast numbers escaping detection and prosecution, and others being falsely convicted and punished
In any case my critique was specifically based on that definition of punishment as the deliberate infliction of harm by way of retaliation, in other words as revenge.
Other justifications which you point to here such as deterrence and prevention are separate issues; but both fall down morally and practically in any case.
Ends don’t justify means, so you can’t inflict harm on somebody on the basis that it will (potentially at least) put themselves or others off from engaging in whatever activity is being precluded.
That is why it is wrong to strike a child to warn them against running across the road or sticking their fingers into an electrical socket.
What you can do is use verbal or physical restraint, eg shout a warning or pull them back.
And that basic principle goes for adults as well. Morally you can (indeed should) restrain somebody who is engaged in or showing an intention to harm others (eg has pulled a knife), and keep them contained (restrict their movements / effectively imprison them) until they agree not to engage in that sort of behaviour.
Still on the idea of deterrence, some will indeed be put off from carrying out the relevant precluded behaviour due to fear of the consequences, but many others pay no attention to this possibility whatsoever .
Furthermore the actual experience of being in prison can simply lead to the relevant individual being more inclined towards anti-social / directly harmful attitudes and behaviour – as the huge recidivism rates attest to.
The ‘prevention’ excuse for imprisonment falls down on the same ethical principle as deterrence, ie that ends don’t justifying means. Though this is again a by-the-by It also possesses a similar lack of real world practicality. Everyone has the potential to carry out harmful actions at any time so if the preventative logic was applied fully and consistently it would result in universal permanent incarceration.
Finally on these aspects it is important to remember that what we are discussing here is not pure ethical theory but crime and punishment in the context of the nation state and its hugely selective, ever changing and to some extent self-serving system of laws.
On these boards those calling for harm to be inflicted on individuals they deem responsible for Covid policies by way of deterrence or prevention certainly did not accept the same logic and processes being applied against the anti-lockdown / mask and vaccine mandate etc movement in terms of arrests / fines / potential imprisonment etc.
In other words these issues often come down to political power and ‘victors’ justice’ (including via the ballot box) rather than anything genuinely moral or consistent.
and also to signal to society that certain things are wrong and will be sanctioned.
I can only repeat that two wrongs don’t make a right, and there are a vast number of non personally pejorative or punitive responses to issues such as public health fascism available.
Who said anything about “vengeance”?”
Just have a quick glance through this thread, including references to nooses and guillotines etc – and these were the sorts of comments and proposals that I was specifically challenging..
Yes lots of people supported lockdowns etc and still do, IMO in part because they were and are being lied to by powerful people. Those powerful people, if found to have been lying, should be held to account.
We are all powerful in different ways, and our role in life is to judge and attempt to control ourselves (a full time job), not others.
Well, most of these arguments could equally be used to argue against any kind of man-made legal system that imposed “punishments” (in modern times, limited to fines, imprisonment and disbarring from taking part in certain activities). Not sure if that’s your view, but if so it’s quite an outlier and I don’t think it’s been tried, and I am doubtful it would work.
I do agree that some care needs to be exercised around the issue of “victor’s justice” and using punishment for political ends, but I don’t think that means we can simply ignore crimes that may have been committed.
All academic because we will not be “victors” except perhaps in the eyes of historians a few generations from now, by which time most of us will be long gone.
Thank you for that very reasonable response, I am not suggesting ignoring or turning blind eyes to anything but rather the consistent application of morality.
Which centrally includes a rejection of hatred and violence, including using the concept of punishment as an excuse for finger-pointing, scape-goating and revenge.
At another level not yet discussed the CCP / Russian Federation / Militant Islam etc backed anti-democratic movement in the West is vigorously encouraging this witch-hunting approach to Covid-related measures as part of its overall divide-and-conquer strategy.
The consistent application of morality is certainly something to strive for, but impossible to achieve by us mortals. I would set the bar neither higher nor lower than the bar for any other criminal prosecutions. I would be astonished if many senior figures had not broken many laws. But we will never find out or see this tested.
I would set the bar neither higher nor lower than the bar for any other criminal prosecutions.
My comments apply to the whole flawed concept of punishment / retaliatory harm (eg punitive imprisonment rather than temporary restraint for purely safety reasons) throughout the criminal justice system, not simply as this relates to Covid policies.
I’m not sure how you’d determine where the line is between “restraint” and punishment.
Absolutely right, in practice this distinction can be very tricky.
On the other hand everybody understands at an emotional (and indeed deeper spiritual) level the difference between looking for retaliation or revenge, and simply trying to prevent harm being carried out.
Your Orwellian approach to the suggestion that justice should not be sought for the horrendous and ongoing crimes of the last two and half years is remarkable and very appropriate given our situation.
Sadly, your case is cowardly and quite frankly insulting.
Not just Orwellian, but also Foucaldian as well. Bankrupt postmodernism, basically.
Your Orwellian approach to the suggestion that justice should not be sought for the horrendous and ongoing crimes of the last two and half years is remarkable and very appropriate given our situation.
The whole concept of justice as involving retaliatory measures / the deliberate infliction of harm in response to (actual or perceived) harm is fundamentally Orwellian:
Two wrongs make a right, or 2 plus 2 = 5.
Punishment of course does have its limits, and should never be the go-to. But it does have its place all the same as a deterrent, and if punishment did not exist in any form there would be no justice. Not everyone is intrinsically motivated, and carrots don’t always work either, sometimes we must unfortunately appeal to the stick too.
Just in case anyone thinks Lockdowns were an unintended consequence…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVBcITMAqnM&t=329s
What about for murderers? Like those who faked the hydroxychloroquine trials by using outrageously high lethal doses on sick patients.
Indeed.
But you KNOW if things were reversed and THEIR side had won, they would be giving us NO AMNESTY and NO QUARTER. And apostates from their side who defected to ours would be punished the very worst of all.
Who said we’ve “won”? Think you’ll find they are still up to their dirty tricks, COP 27, G20 etc where they’ve just agreed to impose Global vaccine passports. These people never give up – another reason to expunge them from humanity.
I’m afraid I am far less magnanimous
Im not casting blame on those who were petrified by the campaign of fear. It’s not their fault they are weak of character (though on that basis they should be removed from any position of power or influence).
However there are those who are guilty as they either should have known better, or DID know better, but didn’t act – either to stop lockdowns or critically evaluate the “vaccines”, and for whom retribution is appropriate. My non exhaustive list:
Bill Gates
Anthony Fauci
Klaus Schwab
Christian Drosten
Jeremy Farrar
Chris Whitty
Patrick Vallance
Jonathan van Tam
June raine (such a ghoul)
Sarah Gilbert
Albert Bourla
Stephane Bancel
Rochelle Walensky
Pascal Soriot (hate to say it, I admire and respect the man, but he should have known)
Boris Johnson
Matt Hancock
Michael Gove
that NHS provider chunt – total NPC whose name escapes me
Leadership of RCOG
Andrew Hill
There are many, many more. Can we get a guillotine?
Ok, maybe we can let the “retail sinners” off with a warning this time. But the “wholesale sinners” at the top? NO AMNESTY and NO QUARTER! We need a Nuremberg 2.0 so we can really mean it when we say, NEVER AGAIN!
Otherwise, they will just move on to Round 2, aka Climate Lockdowns.
So far as I am concerned, Boudreux’s piece is just another tear-stained plea for amnesty.
Does he honestly imagine Fauci, Birx, Ferguson, Farrar, Michie, Hancock and a hundred more deserve amnesty? How about the Pfizer executives and “scientists” who clearly were absolutely well aware that their gene “therapy” was certainly unsafe and largely ineffective but still accepted oceans of money stolen from tax payers for supply. Do they deserve to carry on planning for the next, with only a finger wagged by the politicians whom they bribed, struggling to keep their faces straight?
How about the geniuses who tinkered with the virus to make it more dangerous, in the first place, before ‘accidentally’ releasing it? Smacked hands?
Add the fact that a significant number of these evil swine have also long been hot for zero carbon and other fraudulent scams as well.
And perhaps you imagine that they will stop trying to blame those naughty sceptics for asking rude awkward questions and acknowledge that they themselves might just have shown a little humanity, a bit of kindness?
None of these swine should receive another penny of public money, ever.
There are some stern people who feels that heads on pikestaffs would be even better, pour encourager les autres.
Well said. My thoughts exactly
I understand the sentiment of this piece, however don’t agree.
The last few years have broken trust.
To regain trust it is important that the people in power who lied are taken to task.
To make sure there is sufficient disincentive to ever do this again.
You what!! These were and still are crimes against humanity they are still pushing the death jab experimental gene therapy treatments for children for goodness sake. I’m sorry but they are as guilty of mass genocide as the Nazis were sending the Jews, Gypsies and Slavs to their deaths. They cannot will not get away with it.
Lockdowns were definitely abusive and a gross overreach of Governmental powers and deserve retribution. But what is, beyond any doubt, a heinous crime that justifies Nuremberg 2, is the coercion and mandating of an experimental injection without informed consent that has, and still is, causing significant excess deaths and massive harm to our citizens, young and old. Likewise the deliberate suppression of early treatment. International treaties and human rights, along with basic, centuries old, medical ethics have been utterly ignored by a wave of pure evil that must be severely punished and wiped out. Big Pharma, Governments, politicians, media, academic advisors, the entire medical fraternity…..
I fully agree with Donald. It is also worth saying that 90% of the population share in the guilt for the insanity. It is arguable that politicians were merely responding to public demands for lockdown.
The whole thing was a demonstration of the weakness of Western democracy, and how easily it can be subverted by lies, and the laziness of citizens who cannot be bothered to inform themselves or carry out their democratic duties to the rest of society.