I was interested to read the newly released, but rather unarousing, vaccine policy of the The Australian Sex Party which has seen fit to join in the orgy of vaccination zealotry and bigotry currently sweeping Australia. This is hardly surprising considering the author of the policy – Darren Austin – is a prominent member of Stop the Australian Vaccination Network (SAVN), a pro-vaccine hate group set up to suppress dissent against the vaccine programme. He made this teasing post about the Sex Party’s imminent policy announcement on SAVN’s Facebook page on May 10.
Predictably, a number of SAVN followers were flushed with excitement at the Sex Party’s prospective foray into vaccine policy. Alas, when it was released a few days later it was something of an anti-climax to say the least. Far from bringing something titillating or fresh to the arena, the author of the policy failed to erect any deeply penetrating arguments in support of vaccine bondage.
The policy is just a tired, old rehash of all the moral exhibitionist arguments with which we’re all familiar. The only thing that was missing was an old photo of an iron lung.
If vaccine skeptics were gay
One could be forgiven for having assumed that the Australian Sex Party would support non-discriminatory public policy measures. After all, another of its policies is the enactment of federal legislation to protect individuals against vilification and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation.
Only Victoria, NSW, ACT and Tasmania have legislation that protects individuals from vilification and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and/or gender. Establish federal legislation protecting individuals from vilification and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and/or gender.
This is a perfectly reasonable policy and one which I believe everyone should support. It wasn’t so long ago that homosexuality was illegal in some states of Australia, and I have no doubt that homosexual people are still the subject of harassment and vilification for such a reason.
However, it’s difficult to comprehend how a political party – which otherwise supports the principle of non-discrimination – is promoting the opposing position in its vaccine policy.
I wonder what is the Sex Party’s position on gay vaccine skeptics?
Bigotry will always find a way
I’ve come to believe that the human race is never content unless its dumping on some voiceless minority. Vaccine skeptics and their children are just the latest target du jour; yesterday it was gays.
We are being vilified and harassed simply because we have assessed the evidence purporting to support the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, and found it seriously wanting. I personally believe that if the theory and practice of vaccination was being proposed as a new medical invention today, it would be laughed out of academia, and its proponents condemned to scientific exile. Vaccination theory and practice really is that preposterous.
The party also claims – via its Victorian sexual health policy – to support health policies which aim to reduce the stigmatisation and shaming of those alleged to be carrying disease causing organisms such as HIV, claimed to be the cause of AIDS, and Hepatitis, claimed to be a major cause of liver disease.
The Sex Party’s sexual health policy aims to reduce stigma, blame/shame and discrimination of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Remove stigma and discrimination of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV through school-based and community education.
Contrast this with the party’s policy on ‘No Jab No Pay’ and the hypocrisy becomes evident.
Knowingly and willingly putting one’s own child and others at risk of dangerous and preventable diseases is irresponsible, reckless, and antisocial.
Likewise its No Jab No Play policy.
Those who choose to endanger the health of others by not vaccinating their children should not be welcome to do so in an early childhood care setting.
How those policy statements are not stigmatising and blame-engendering is anyone’s guess, but as should be clear by now, when it comes to the issue of vaccination, there is absolutely no application of logic or consistency required.
The clincher is the accusation of medical neglect levelled at non-vaccinating parents, though for some unexplained reason, the policy is silent on the issue of criminal prosecution for such medical neglect.
Choosing not to vaccinate your children amounts to medical neglect; this is a serious ethical issue.
Surely if a parent is engaged in medical neglect it’s a criminal matter and not a mere ethical issue as it is framed in the Sex Party’s policy? If non-vaccination of children raises questions of medical neglect why are these draconian laws needed at all, because surely non-vaccinating parents would already be in gaol, having been prosecuted under the existing criminal code?
No Jab No Pay/Play violate the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
The policy is also silent on the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of carrying an allegedly disease causing germ, or an imputation of carrying such a disease-causing germ under the Commonwealth DDA. Although, the DDA provides for a public health defence, this defence is only available in relation to existing disease, not in relation to unvaccinated, but otherwise healthy children.
No Jab No Pay/Play are unconstitutional
Likewise the policy makes no mention of the fact that both laws are unconstitutional.
I’d suggest Darren go back to the drawing board and stop copying the policies of an uninspiring hate group.
The full policy is available on the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network website.