.... the editor of the Waikato Times. Seriously, there isn't one, but if there was one, I'd award it to him for unethically butchered a letter of mine, to make it read the opposite of what I meant. Perhaps this is the new trend to dissuade thinkers from voicing opinions! I mean, if you KNOW something you write will be completely butchered and made unrecognizably, you'll definitely hesitate to write another one in the future, wouldn't you? So here's what happened. In the Waikato Times, on 11 May, was this letter:
In relation to "improving immunisation completion rates", Pat Gregory (Waikato Times letters, May 5) is appalled at the recommendations of the select committee that some benefits should be withheld from those parents who choose not to immunise their children.
Pat says this blackmail should not be tolerated in a democracy where people have a right not to accept medication if they so wish, and it would be precedent-setting.
I think Pat will find that the authorities have always had the right to compulsorily medicate individuals in certain circumstances and for certain afflictions, syphillis being one I think, along with tuberculosis and smallpox. There are probably others.
This is not a case of forcible vaccinations, rather an incentive to protect the rest of society.
If you want to call it blackmail, fine. The point is, if some dolt wishes to put the rest of society at risk by refusing to vaccinate then they should expect that society has a right to withhold those benefits conferred by being a member of that society.
For some of these diseases the "adverse reaction" is death.
There is far too much emphasis on individual rights and not near enough on individual responsibility.
Here was the reply I sent to the paper, and the red parts are the parts that the editor removed:
I absolutely agree with Steven Innes from Hamilton, that individuals who take full responsibility for their own lives are a dying breed.
A friend of mine went to A&E on a Friday night, to have some glass shards removed. She waited while other emergencies were put ahead of her. Two involved obese people, one in a diabetic crisis, the other with a serious respiratory issue. One very large lady in the waiting room, scoffed down a huge white sticky bun with pink icing on the top. The rest were traffic accidents, with no shortage of abusive drunkards, and some who wouldn’t get the message that smoking in a hospital waiting room is illegal.
We mused about these fully vaccinated members of the public, who (Added – These people) eat, drink, smoke and do what they want, yet expect the rest of us (Including those who don’t vaccinate themselves or their children) to foot all their bills for them. And of course, these fully vaccinated people are “protected” and not “at risk” from the” dirty unvaccinated” they are so scornful about ... by those same vaccines which taxes also paid for.
Just think - if everyone WAS FORCED to take seriously all the health responsibilities inside their own homes and personal lives, we’d not only cut the health spending in this country by at least three-quarters, but over half of social welfare recipients would become “fit” to work, and contribute productive taxes to society.
And maybe, all these people susceptible to infection because of their unhealthy lifestyles, would discover that real health and protection from infection, doesn’t come at the end of a needle given to them, or someone else.
Here is what was printed.
Completely different, isn't it.
Congratulations Mr Editor. Not.
I have just sent him the following missive:
I attach a copy of the letter you published, as well as my original text below. I’ve highlighted in red, the parts you deleted. Please read both and compare.
Please explain to me your irrational decision to totally butcher the content and meaning of my letter, thereby reversing my intent in submitting it in the first place.
By deleting those parts, the resultant letter means the opposite of what I said - and Steve Innes will not have got my message to him at all.