In September this year, Dr Julie Ponesse, Ethics Professor at Huron College at the University of Western Ontario, was dismissed after 20 years in her job. She lost her teaching position for questioning and refusing to comply with her employer’s vaccine mandate.
Dr. Ponesse has now taken on a new role with The Democracy Fund, a registered Canadian charity aimed at advancing civil liberties, where she serves as the pandemic ethics scholar.
Here is her talk, as part of The Faith and Democracy Series.
We are the victims — and the soldiers — of a pandemic of compliance.
But compliance is not a virtue; it isn’t neutral, and it certainly isn’t harmless.
If you are worried about a loss of justice, if you are worried about what kinds of lives will be possible for our children, if you want your country back — the country that was once the envy of the world — then now is the time to act. There is no reason to wait, there is no luxury or excuse to wait. We need you now.
Now is the time to call our politicians and write to our newspapers. Now is the time to protest, now is the time to challenge and even disobey our government.
As Margaret Mead said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Dr. Ponesse: [Mandatory vaccination proponents say]: We’re in a pandemic; we must relinquish autonomy over our bodies, for the public good.
They are also saying: We’re in a pandemic; we – meaning you – must relinquish all cognitive activity unsupportive of the aims of those giving you this instruction.
We have to decide whether we are prepared to comply or not to comply with rules that require the loss of our autonomy.
November 7, 2021 at 3:32 pm
We have to decide whether we are prepared to comply or not to comply…
Therein lies the issue: The allowance of choice (to comply or not) IS non-compliance with the relinquishing of all cognitive activity unsupportive of the aims of those giving you this instruction.
CHOICE IS NON-COMPLIANCE.
Non-compliance is a threat to the imposition of a new social contract.
Threats CANNOT be ignored; they must be responded to.
The new social contract relies on FEAR as the PRIMARY MOTIVATOR.
Fear is only effective as a motivator if there are CONSEQUENCES, both in theory and practice.
The fear of witnessing the consequences for another of breaching the new social contract (which has already been signed on your behalf), motivates those considering the non-compliant concept of choice.
Compliance is not a virtue?
It isn’t neutral?
It isn’t harmless?
Try saying that over at scaredycat.