In a recent television interview in Quebec, conducted en francais, Justin Trudeau said:
We are going to end this pandemic by proceeding with the vaccination…
We all know people who are deciding whether or not they are willing to get vaccinated, and we will do our very best to try to convince them. However, there is still a part of the population (that) is fiercely against it…
They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist. It’s a very small group of people, but that doesn’t shy away from the fact that they take up some space.
This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people? Over 80% of the population of Quebec have done their duty by getting the shot. They are obviously not the issue in this situation.
What may be drawn from this odd tirade? Maxime Bernier doesn’t hesitate to call Trudeau a ‘fascist psychopath’. Perhaps. At the very least, Trudeau’s infinitely elastic virtue of tolerance does seem to have limits, and his vilification of the ‘unvaxxed’ does not seem all that far from dictatorial demagoguery, presaging something worse than name calling.
Misogynist? Anyone not sufficiently pro-abortion for any reason is, for Trudeau, a woman hater. Never mind that abortion is not just very bad for babies, but, in a deeper spiritual way, worse for their mothers, as Pope John Paul points out in Evangelium Vitae.
And I’m not sure what resisting any of this has to do with racism. I guess Trudeau just threw it in for good measure, seeing racism everywhere, even if it is a bit rich coming from Justin ‘mammy’ blackface.
If we might tone down the rhetoric, and stick to reason and the rule of law, there are any number of reasons why some are hesitant to receive this vaccine. What follows does not pretend to be an exhaustive list:
- These are not, strictly speaking, ‘vaccines’, not in the Edward Jenner sense, but modified genetic therapies. They are still not fully tested, and have been approved – if such be the verb – only for emergency use. They were never meant to be given to all seven billion people on the planet.
- The government has no right to forcibly inject something into your body, so they still require your consent. They may coerce such consent by making life difficult (see Emmanuel Macron’s crude comments), but you have a right to refuse. The voluntary nature of any medical treatment has been codified at Nuremberg, in our Charter, and it is the Church’s official policy, whatever certain prelates say. Just last spring, Trudeau affirmed that ‘we are not a country that makes vaccinations mandatory’. But, then, Trudeau, truth and promises are not always in the same Venn diagram.
- There is at least some level of risk with each injection, and those physicians who claim that it is ‘entirely safe’ are quite simply not telling the truth. There are thousands of reports of grave injury or death, with as well as risks to expectant mothers and their babies, increasing with each passing day. Isn’t it enough that this inoculation might – just might – be causing miscarriages and stillbirths be enough to give us pause? And we know not what the long term consequences may be, for we’re still early in this game.
- The government and the pharmaceutical companies are indemnified, freed from any liability. Should you be incapacitated, don’t expect much help, and your insurance – life, work and otherwise – would also be in doubt.
- The current products are all tainted in some way with the heinous crime of abortion, and should be taken only for grave and proportionate reasons (as in, to save a life). The Church has clarified this caveat in her written teaching, but it is almost universally ignored by our current Magisterium, which is disconcerting, to say the least.
- Most people, perhaps even all, are not at significant risk from these strains of the virus, due to natural immunity, or demographic category (children!). Hence, there is no proportionate need. Covid is not smallpox, and far less the black death.
- Trudeau is disingenuous when he says people have done their duty by ‘getting the shot’. This is not a one, or even two, shot deal, but endless boosters are on the way, every four, five or six months. In Quebec, the two-jabbed are no longer considered ‘vaccinated’, and must now stay away from the three jabbed. We’re in Alice in Wonderland here, but not as much fun, for with at least some risk attached to each injection, is not the government forcing its people to play some low-level Russian roulette?
- It is at least a hypothesis that it is the vaccinated who are driving whatever variants there be, not the unvaccinated, as the virus tries to find a workaround the porous artificial inoculation, and evolves accordingly. It seems prudent to keep at least some segment of the population unvaccinated, as a store of natural immunity.
- After all this, the vaccines don’t even seem to be working, and may even make things worse, with evidence of a greater spread of omicron amongst the vaccinated.
- Finally, who can blame people for questioning what’s behind the drive to perpetually vaccinate everyone, without exception. Profit? Control? Something more insidious? If someone suggested a strange, new medicine for you to try, and, as you’re pondering, he pulls out a gun, and says, ‘drink it’, why would you not hesitate?
How far will Trudeau go, as he gets more desperate? Recall that he already sees certain segments of the human population as disposable: The unborn, ‘terminated’ for any reason, right up to the moment of birth. And it was Trudeau who legalized the murder-suicide of the elderly, the vulnerable, or, soon, those just plain bored of life. Oh, it all may be antiseptic, done by medical professionals in hospitals, but murder is still murder, by whatever name, even if labeled with names as seemingly innocuous as MAiD and ‘reproductive health’.
For those who have gone along thus far, how much farther? To how many boosters will you subject yourself, and your children? If you received the jab under coercion, what else will the state now be permitted to do to you? Where is the line in the sand?
What happens if Trudeau’s intolerance leads him to more ‘extreme’ measures, to convince the inconvincible? Will Canadians, like the people of Europe of last century, shutter their windows, their minds, their very souls, to the evil that may unfold? Even if altruism and solidarity be not your thing, there is the distinct possibility, as Mordechai warned Esther, that we all may be hoisted on the scaffold we have allowed to be built by our own cowardice, complaisance and complicity.
For those resisting, or at least beginning to question, whether jabbed or not: There is always hope. God permits the princes of this world some power, but they are on a leash, one which may soon be yanked quite firmly to heel. (Follow the story of Esther to the fate of Aman). But we must all do our bit, for the length of that leash may depend on our resistance, and how much we are willing to give up for our principles, our rights, and our freedom. No totalitarian regime ever collapsed by unmitigated compliance. Solzhenitsyn, Dostoyevsky, Karol Wojtyla and numerous others have much to teach us here.
In the meantime, Trudeau, as the purported leader of a free, democratic, constitutional monarchy, one that was once proudly Christian, should reflect on what each of those terms implies. The judgement seat of Christ is ineluctable, and the bell eventually tolls for each one of us. Heaven, or hell, await, and the choice is ours to make.
Vita brevis, aeternitas longa.