In America, national, state, and local governments, along with allied companies and colleges, have been laying on the propaganda and pressure for everyone to take experimental coronavirus vaccines, some of which are not even vaccines under the normal meaning of the term. “The vaccines are safe and effective,” is the refrain of the pushers, though there is much reason to doubt that assurance.
At least nobody is forcing us to take the vaccines, Americans may say to themselves for a modicum of relief. But pressure — often supported by government even if implemented by private parties — to take the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots can be intense. Refusal can lead to hardships including being fired from one’s job, refused entry to events, barred from travel, or kicked out of one’s college. Does none of that amount to forcing people to take shots?
In Franklin County, Ohio, there is a government effort regarding which even an extremely talented promoter of the coronavirus experimental vaccines would be smart to just admit, “yeah, that is forcing people to take the shots.” Jake Zuckerman reported this week at the Columbus Dispatch that in Franklin County, the state’s most populous county where the city of Columbus is located, state trial court Judge Richard Frye has imposed, as a condition for probation that allows defendants to avoid incarceration, a requirement that the defendants take experimental coronavirus vaccine shots and submit proof of having done so to the government department overseeing probation.
So here is your choice, Judge Fry is effectively telling defendants, take the shots or be subjected to incarceration with its accompanying extreme deprivation of freedom.
The judge, however, appears to present the loathsome “choice” he offers defendants as a kindly effort to help them overcome their procrastination. Zuckerman wrote in the article:
He said he discussed the matter in open court with the defendants, and they attributed their unvaccinated status to procrastination. None raised any philosophical, medical or religious objection.
You don’t say? The people over whom the judge is making the decision of whether they can walk free or be sentenced to a prison term are not calling hooey on his vaccine evangelism.
There have been opportunities galore for months to take the experimental coronavirus vaccines, at zero cost even. At this point, the idea that a major percentage of the people who have not taken the shots are just procrastinating is laughable. Most people who have not taken the shots have done so because they have made up their minds against doing so. They have either made up their minds for the long term, or they have determined that the current situation and evidence weighs against taking the shots.
But, now take people who have decided against taking the shots and put them before a judge who says taking the shots is a requirement for avoiding being condemned to the slammer. It should be no surprise that many of them will say “thank you sir” and take the shots under duress.
An occasional defendant may stand up to the pressure and argue his philosophical, medical, religious, or other objections. But, I doubt many defendants will take this course given they will expect that doing so will lead to either the imposition of a different probation condition that they may see as more burdensome, some other punishment, or a one-way ticket to incarceration due to the elimination of the probation option.
