(a commentary)
The South African apartheid was a system of institutionalized segregation. It was an authoritarian political culture that insisted on a social stratification. Factions in the population were negatively labelled. It resulted in controlled movement, filtered participation in community events, and mass evictions from society. The governments passed legislation in support of these discriminatory practices in order to justify their rational for their opposition to diversity. Statutes such as the Population Registration Act, Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, and Reservation of Separate Amenities Act regulated the less desirable integrated populous. To this day select government officials defend the apartheid as a necessary measure at the time.
Is this local observation so abstract and unrealistic to envision in our current cultural situation?
Certainly the World, Canada and Alberta will never steep so low as to ignore a citizen’s freedom of choice with such abhorrent behaviour, nor isolate or restrict their movement and participation in public activities based on identity credentials. Neither would we as a collective society discriminate against any group because of their desire for privacy, or wish to practice their religious beliefs, or because they seek accommodation from their employer for personal medical autonomy. Would we? Could we?
The justification and a case for the abuse of civil liberties can always be manufactured. But at grave cost. It should never be permissible to sacrifice a person’s legal rights, no matter how it is shrouded by perceived social imperatives. In the moment, faced with political and social pressure, decision makers bend towards the path of least resistance. Yet, such a direction can have long term consequences. Resistance is important. It illuminates potential flaws. It allows for an unbiased analysis of motivators. It is also critical to beware of any sudden adaptation to the engraved and sensitively developed policies of social security and public safety, which become high risk when modified frequently to suit the needs of the political power rather than for the people.
It begins with a hint of distain. Causing one group of the population to dislike or distrust another. By controlling a select narrative, political and organizational leaders build dissension though negative branding, such as “it is the pandemic of the unvaccinated”, “anti-vaxxers”, “vaccine-hesitant”, and “misinformation” dissemination. Each of these labels are intentionally prefaced with a negative to imprint the concept that this view is wrong. Alternatively, one could market an open-minded perspective plus welcoming everyone’s viewpoints by leading with complementary titles such as “it is the pandemic of the century”, “vaccine choice”, “vaccine validators”, and “critical thinking information sharing”.
History teaches us that distain leads to hatred, hatred leads to discrimination, and discrimination leads to rebellion.
It continues through censorship. Alternatives to the scripted narrative that challenge a sole perspective are blocked, edited, or dismissed. The entities that drive the single perspective become blind to options and outwardly scoff at the founders of philosophy. The mainstream news as well as popular social media (for example: Facebook, YouTube) prevent the sharing of the full spectrum of facts by blocking content they deem to veer off the pre-determined popular storyline. The CEO of YouTube admitted to the censorship of over 1 million videos they decided were contrary to the benefit of everyone to absorb.
History tells us that censorship leads to non-consensual subjugation and the muting of one’s contributions. Removing the right to speech leads to suspicion and a greater passion to be heard.
It cements with segregation. When a general member of the public is exposed to mandated isolation, containment, denial of access, and the relinquishment of public privileges, the seeds of exclusion are planted. Vaccine mandates, employee vaccine policies, provincial restriction exemption programs or whatever a country calls it – all lead to social stratification, favouritism, privilege, and class hierarchies. The evidence of such a systemic oppression is realized through the establishment of social infrastructure lock downs whether by age, race, religion, politics, health, or status. Once check points (virtual QR codes or physical enforcement) are established in countries that have in the past been advocates for freedom, equality, and inclusion, discrimination is the result.
History warns us that segregation leads to injustice. Injustice includes any unlawful, unethical, and immoral conduct towards a sub-set of the human race, which equates to apartheid.
MyAPSChoice.ca believes…