1. “But we already need vaccine passports to travel to some countries.”
It is true that to visit some countries, you are required to present
proof that you are immunised against diseases like smallpox, yellow
fever or cholera.
But visiting the far-flung jungles of Africa or South America is
worlds apart from visiting your local cafe, museum, church, workplace,
or a nearby Australian state or territory. This is what the current
vaccine passport debate is about.
These are apples-and-oranges comparisons. One is about the right of
sovereign nations to determine who enters their borders and under what
circumstances. The other is about freedoms that every Australian was
born with, such as freedom of movement, association and assembly.
Advocates of vaccine passports are yet to explain why Australians
should have these inalienable birthrights held hostage until they give
up their medical autonomy.
2. “But flu vaccination is already mandated for entry into nursing homes.”
In some parts of Australia, people wanting to visit a loved one in a
nursing home must show proof of an influenza vaccination before entry.
Given that the primary purpose of a nursing home is to house and care
for the elderly—who are on average much more vulnerable to influenza—there are obvious merits to such policies.
The same is true for ‘no jab, no play’ rules in childcare facilities.
You don’t have to agree with these policies (I don’t) to see that the
logic is to protect young children who are particularly susceptible to
childhood diseases.
But to use this as the rationale for Covid-19 vaccine passports at
all venues in the nation—which provide goods and services to people of
all ages—is an extraordinary stretch. As such, an extraordinary amount
of evidence must be provided by those arguing for it.
We know that while Covid-19 is a deadly disease for some, it is
nowhere near as fatal to the general population as influenza is to the
elderly. In fact, for the vast majority of people, both the original virus and its variants are no more (or less) dangerous than the flu.
Moreover, we know that while the Covid-19 vaccines reduce hospitalisations and deaths, they do not prevent transmission of the virus.
These facts do not constitute extraordinary evidence for forcing people to take a Covid-19 vaccine.
3. “But privately-owned venues are already allowed to ban smokers.”
Yes, privately-owned venues are allowed to ban smokers, but the
minute a smoker removes the cigarette from their mouth, they can enter
the venue. A patron visiting a particular establishment without shoes, a
collared shirt or ID can likewise tidy themselves and freely enter.
Taking a vaccine is different. Vaccination is a medical treatment
that, like all other medical treatments in Australia, is governed by the
principle of informed consent.
Even if we entertain the comparison between taking a vaccine and
disposing of a cigarette, privately-owned venues are still regulated by
the government. A pub or restaurant cannot, for example, decide to
exclude people who have HIV/AIDS. In NSW, ‘infectious diseases
discrimination’ is against the law: this includes treating someone unequally on the assumption that they have or may acquire an infectious disease.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has so far indicated that the Federal
Government won’t force venues to require proof of Covid-19 vaccination
for entry: a welcome announcement. What is in question is whether the
government should allow this kind of discrimination at all.
A strong case can be made that they should not. Renowned legal scholar Professor Augusto Zimmermann argues
that vaccine passports “unconstitutionally impinge on the democratic
principle of equality before the law and the free movement of Australian
citizens within their own country.”
Whether we turn to Australia’s Constitution and subsequent case law,
our nation’s anti-discrimination legislation, or even the ‘tolerance’
and ‘inclusion’ rhetoric that has dominated our airwaves for the last
five years—Australian governments should be acting to prevent this kind
of medical discrimination.
4. “But the government already mandates other safety measures.”
It has also been argued that since the government has the right to
make us wear seatbelts or stop at traffic lights, they should also have
the right to make us get a vaccine.
Once again, these situations are chalk and cheese. One of them
involves obeying momentary directives; the other requires handing over
one’s medical autonomy to the State without any assurance that the State
will hand it back again.
Other nations such as Israel are already mandating a third booster shot and planning a fourth. These passports come with no sunset clause. It takes immense—one might argue naive—trust in government to assume that this infrastructure won’t be broadened by present and future governments.
5. “But other countries are already using vaccine passports.”
Other nations are indeed already using vaccine passports. But this has been met with
considerable unrest, with mass protests breaking out in cities across
Europe—even if corporate media outlets are being deliberately silent
about these historical events.
Representative democracy was established so that a nation’s laws
would reflect the will of its people. But when political leaders make
unilateral decisions under emergency health orders, they effectively
bypass the people’s will. Mass protests are an indication that a
leader’s decisions may not accurately reflect the will of those who
elected them.
The use of vaccine passports elsewhere does not mean Australia will
inevitably follow suit. By speaking up on this issue, Australians can
and should seek to influence the decision-making of their leaders.
It is also a flawed argument to suggest that Australia should mandate
vaccines because other countries are doing so. Other nations allow
grown men to marry child brides. Should we do the same? A nation’s laws
should not be shaped by global groupthink but by the will of its
citizens—ideally guided by God’s moral law.
6. “But vaccine passports will bring us greater freedom.”
The idea that vaccine passports will somehow grant us ‘greater freedom’ is a semantic trick that some political leaders have used and that many have believed and repeated.
It is a semantic trick because what is meant is not greater freedom but greater safety. Driven by exaggerated panic, people hope that vaccine mandates will deliver them freedom from fear or freedom from death. But to be clear, these are functional synonyms for safety.
The civic freedoms endangered by vaccine passports—such as freedom of movement and the right to bodily integrity—have precise definitions.
More safety is always possible when we give up civil liberties. After
all, one of the safest places in the world is solitary confinement; but
that doesn’t make solitary confinement an optimal life choice.
In every case, we must ask whether the freedoms we give up—freedoms
that our ancestors bled and died on foreign soil to protect—are worth
the safety promised to us in that exchange. And we can hardly have a
rational debate about such weighty matters when words are used to
conceal rather than reveal someone’s true intent.
7. “But vaccine passports are just temporary.”
I have been asked why I assume vaccine passports will be permanent.
But I believe this is the wrong question. A better question would be, why do you assume vaccine passports will be temporary?
At the beginning of 2020, if I had told you that the Australian
government would force people to stay inside their homes for months at a
time and only be allowed to exercise for an hour a day, would you have
believed me?
What if I told you there would be mass unrest with police firing
rubber bullets at unarmed protesters? What about state borders being
shut at the drop of a hat? Military patrolling the city streets?
Governments requiring you to tell them your every move, including—if you
are single—which other individual you were liaising with?
Of course, every one of these measures has been justified as being
“for the greater good”. But that’s precisely the point. In the name of
public health and safety, the government’s role in our lives has only
become more intrusive and onerous since the beginning of the pandemic.
It is not ‘acting out of fear’ to warn that the vaccine passports
being rolled out now may end up becoming a permanent fixture of daily
life. On the contrary, this is an entirely sober and realistic
prediction—though one I would be delighted to be wrong about.
For context, in August, the World Health Organisation released an 80-page document providing
‘implementation guidance’ for vaccine passports. They aimed to equip
all WHO member states to develop passports that are ‘interoperable’—that
is, passports that can be used within and between all of the world’s
nations.
Indeed, long before the Covid-19 pandemic began, the European Commission had laid out a roadmap to implement a standard vaccination passport for EU citizens.
There is a global mood for these passports. Governments are spending billions of dollars on them. Again, what would lead us to assume they are temporary?
8. “But no one is suggesting churches should ban the unvaccinated.”
Once again, in response to the question “Who is seriously considering
barring unvaccinated people from church?” one could reply, “Who was
seriously considering locking Australians inside their homes before 2020
began?”
But in answer to the question, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Israel have all variously barred unvaccinated people from worship services.
Moreover, a recent Christianity Today article
suggested that although limiting gatherings to only vaccinated
congregants would be resisted by many churches, “the idea isn’t new
[and] the use of health passes could become commonplace in the coming
months.”
In an Australian context, the vocal and widespread opposition to The Ezekiel Declaration suggests
that many Australian Christians are willing to exclude unvaccinated
people from church services in the name of health and safety.
Before I could finish writing this article, the New South Wales government announced a soon-to-be-confirmed rule that places of worship must use vaccine passports to exclude the unvaccinated.
This eleventh-hour development is further evidence—if we needed
it—that those still instinctively hoping for government leniency are
letting themselves be led up the garden path.
9. “But the vaccines are safe.”
The vaccines have proven safe for the majority of those who have
taken them. But this does not mean they should be mandated. Many things
are healthy for us—whether vitamins, exercise or vegetables—that
governments have no business forcing upon us.
It is important to note, however, that the vaccines have not been
safe for everyone. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) reports
that nine Australians have lost their lives as a direct result of taking a Covid-19 vaccine—one from Pfizer and eight from AstraZeneca.
(The TGA has received 490 further reports of death following a
Covid-19 vaccination, but in these cases, a causal link to the vaccine
was not explicitly confirmed).
Some 55,000 adverse events have been reported to the TGA in
connection with the Covid-19 vaccines. Most of these were minor and
short-lived, but some have been serious. Channel 7 reporter Denham Hitchcock, for example, has suffered debilitating complications since taking the jab.
In the United States, almost 14,000 deaths have
been reported following a Covid-19 vaccination through the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This number represents 60 per
cent of all vaccine deaths that have ever been reported to VAERS since
it was set up in 1990.
Not all VAERS data is bias-free or accurate since reports are made to
it voluntarily. But it is also true that reporting a death is a
time-consuming task that comes with no personal benefit—and possible
scrutiny—for any medical professional who submits it. So 14,000 is
likely to be a floor rather than a ceiling for Covid-19 vaccine deaths
in America.
In addition to this, some 650,000 adverse events have
been reported to VAERS following a Covid-19 vaccination. Most of these
are minor, but thousands of miscarriages, heart attacks, and permanent
disabilities are included in this number.
Similar data can be seen in the UK’s Yellow Card reporting system and Europe’s EudraVigilance database.
Given that lockdowns, travel bans, and mask mandates were so often
justified on the basis that they might save “even one life”, it is
ironic if people now justify these deaths and injuries as mere
collateral damage in the vaccine rollout.
It is also callous to suggest that any talk of vaccine deaths or
injuries will harm the vaccine rollout. These are real people who have
died or suffered in life-altering ways. Their lives matter as much as
those we are seeking to protect from Covid-19.
10. “But the risk of Covid-19 outweighs the risk of the vaccine.”
It is true that, on balance, the risk posed by the virus outweighs
the risk of taking the vaccine. But this fact comes as cold comfort for
the person who dies from a vaccine and for the loved ones they leave
behind.
This point was well-argued in a recent Caldron Pool article.
Caldron Pool likewise pointed out that human beings are not
robots: we approach risk in different ways. Some people are so
risk-averse that they never travel by aeroplane; others live for the
thrill of BASE jumping or motocross despite the significant dangers of
these sports. We all agree that these are decisions people should be
free to make themselves, not have imposed on them by others.
Additionally, if given a choice between being killed ‘artificially’
at the hands of another person or by an event of nature that may happen
sometime in the vague, unknowable future, most people would choose the
latter. This explains why many young, healthy people with robust immune
systems prefer to take their chance with the virus rather than the
vaccine. This choice should be left to them, not forced on them.
Covid-19 is a highly discriminatory disease that poses particular
dangers to the elderly, the immunocompromised, and those with
co-morbidities. For such people, taking the vaccine is a no-brainer. But
this is an argument for vaccines, not compulsory vaccines.
Let the healthy 18-year-old man who has just a 0.003 per cent chance of dying from Covid-19—but who could die of a vaccine complication—assess his risks each way, free of coercive mandates.
11. “But the unvaccinated could end up killing people.”
The Covid-19 vaccines have been shown to reduce hospitalisations and
deaths significantly. But nations with high vaccination rates still see high rates of transmission and infection.
In other words, the benefit of the vaccine is almost entirely
personal. It protects the person who takes it and may help slow
transmission of the virus, but it cannot prevent them from passing it on
to others.
Recent studies show that unlike immunity gained through natural infection, the vaccines do not give mucosal immunity; and that unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people carry similar viral loads.
So people should be encouraged to take the vaccine for their
protection. But the idea that being vaccinated will render significant
benefits to others is yet to be established. This is a wish; it is not a
fact. Therefore, barring unvaccinated people from society is not only
unethical; it is also ineffectual.
12. “But the healthcare system will be overwhelmed if you don’t get vaccinated.”
Now that most at-risk people have been vaccinated, the pressure on
Australia’s healthcare system is significantly reduced, though modellers
and governments remain vigilant.
For someone likely to need hospitalisation if they fall sick with
Covid-19, it is a selfless act for them to be vaccinated. But this
doesn’t mean it should be made mandatory for all people regardless of
their risk profile.
13. “But Christians should give up their rights.”
Through his life and teachings, Jesus made it clear that we are to give up our rights for the benefit of others. Theoretically, this could be
applied to freely deciding to get vaccinated. But it certainly doesn’t
work for vaccine mandates: Jesus didn’t teach us to demand that others
give up their rights for us—which is precisely what proponents of
vaccine passports are arguing.
In fact, this teaching of Jesus would only apply to being vaccinated
if, by taking the vaccine, I could prevent deaths in others. We are yet
to see clear evidence of this in the case of the Covid-19 vaccines.
Furthermore, Jesus taught us to die to ourselves, but this command
has limits. It is not ‘Christlike’ for someone to endure abuse, violence
or sexual predation at the hands of their spouse. A similar example is
Communism, where your rights and property are fully surrendered to the
State—but this philosophy led to 150 million deaths. There must be a
limiting principle to giving up our rights.
If someone has a very low risk of dying from Covid-19, and if the
vaccine will not prevent them from spreading the virus to others, it may
not make sense for them to take it. It certainly doesn’t make sense for
us to force them to, nor would it be Christlike for us to demand this.
In fact, given that natural immunity has been found to be up to 13 times better than
vaccine immunity, it could be argued that the most selfless thing for a
young and healthy person to do is to contract the virus naturally and
recover.
I often hear the criticism that Christians who disagree with vaccine
mandates are selfish for demanding their rights. Actually, I have
encountered very few Christians making this point.
Instead, I see Christians seeking to protect the rights and freedoms
of those who, for a whole swathe of reasons, may not want or be able to
take the vaccine. In making this stand, they are weathering a lot of
opposition for the benefit of others; they are applying the teaching of
Jesus to die to self.
Unfortunately, there are many today who are not conversant with
history. We have had it so good for so long that we don’t understand the
importance of civil liberties.
Freedoms are a safeguard, not a luxury. Human liberties protect the
weak by restraining the powerful. It is the defence of freedom that has
long prevented tyrants from terrorising ordinary people. The worst
abuses of history were only made possible when fundamental freedoms were
cast aside.
If you shrug off freedoms in the name of ‘loving your neighbour’,
know that the neighbours you have chosen to love are the world’s
powerful. And it is the powerless who will eventually pay the price.
Instead, be like Jesus and sacrifice your popularity to defend the
freedoms of others.
By all means, get vaccinated if you will. But don’t force others to: that is a demand we should not make.
Colin G Calloway reports that 
