Our village has a bistrot, it's right in the centre of the village, opposite the church. When we arrived here it was not in use, but it has since opened, serving a locally-brewed beer, and it's staffed by volunteers. A very fine establishment.
I'm the volunteer server on Tuesday evenings, an activity I have recently started. It gives me an opportunity to meet the locals, shoot the breeze, etc. We sit out on the terrace and enjoy a beer as the evening cools down.
There's enough being debated on the current disease outbreak; I don't need to rehash it here. But I will not be party to any mandating of vax passports that I can possibly avoid. So if, from the 1st August, as currently mooted by our leader, I would have to demand such a document from the clients, I won't be volunteering any more.
How far to take this? If I am required to demand it for gîte customers I probably don't have much choice. But if the end-of-year concerts given by the harmony orchestras that I play in will demand it? I should probably stop playing.
Given that égalité is a prized part of the French constiution, I am hoping that a vax passport would be declared unconstiutional. I wouldn't bet on it though.
There's a free concert tonight in Evron. You have to reserve your place so I phoned up the local tourist office to do so. Good - no problem with availability. I was able to assure the lady that yes, I do have the vax certificate and identity card that will be required of me in order to get in.
Shit, it's started.
1 comment:
It will be coming here soon too, I expect
I have mixed views but for a strong libertarian, I am surprisingly pro incentivising vaccination. I would not compel but I think there is a strong case to address those who would freeride the benefits they afford us in opening up society.
In truth, the whole business troubles me.
Our governments have not hesitated to impose severe curtailments to the liberty of the overwhelming majority for the ultimate benefit of a very small minority. So even though I would not compel vaccinations I actually struggle to articulate why it would be much different to imposing compulsory lockdowns. The only reason can see is that we have a general 'sentiment' that there is something somehow different about administering drugs in our bodies compared to compelling us all to close down our social contact for months on end. But is one imposition truly worse than the other? If so, then why? And by 'why' I mean defining tangibly the reason - not just saying 'it's somehow different?' or 'it's just a line we shouldn't cross?' Probably I'm being a pedant here because I simply never accept intuitive sentiment or vagaries as valid reasoning, whereas many (most) others would. So I'm still struggling with the tangible moral difference?
None of this means I disagree with your concerns - it's more that I think the moral issues are incredibly complex and entirely under debated in this whole fiasco. The silence of our leading ethicists has been deafening.
But there we go - a post in a comment almost.
Hope all is well with you in France - one day soon I might actually be allowed to go there!!
Post a Comment