Discrimination is sometimes for the greater good

In what appeared to be a split from some Cabinet colleagues, Health Minister Chris Tufton was quoted as saying:

“After two years with the number of solutions available … it justifies … where we begin to discriminate in favour of persons who have been vaccinated, and I think those are some of the bold decisions that are going to be necessary … .”

Excitement generated by recent pushback from an influential tourism mogul may have caused you to forget that the quote is from a December 30, 2021, speech at a handover of COVID test kits to the tourism sector.

Then, tourism didn’t publicly demur. On February 2, Tufton returned to this theme (Cabinet seemed now on board):

“… Government intends to announce a series of events … that will now allow more persons to congregate around certain events within a controlled setting. The single most significant criterion of that is you must be vaccinated.”

The Gleaner reported (February 6) that this latest announcement was harshly criticised by “Adam Stewart, who bashed the move as discriminatory”.

Ya don’t say? Rip Van Tourism wake up?

The Gleaner reported that Stewart “argued the decision would go against the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans who have made a personal choice.

‘What happened to ‘Out Of Many One People?’ Stewart tweeted”.

Sigh.

One people; One Government; One Government not only by the people, but also FOR the people!

Sleeping one night when the Father vision I

and said I want you to be another follower of I.

Knot up yu hair and lead a righteous life son

You will be blessed as a Rastafari

‘WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?’

In the event readers haven’t noticed my relentless campaign for sensible vaccine mandates, let me make myself clear. I support Chris Tufton’s position 100 per cent. I have one concern: “What took you so long?”

Let’s be real. 98.4 per cent of COVID deaths have been of unvaccinated. Only two per cent of isolated hospital patients are fully vaccinated. Need I say anything more?

What’s the national objective of vaccine mandates? It’s to protect public health against a raging pandemic that has killed more Jamaicans than gunmen. It’s also to protect and preserve Jamaica’s already inadequate, understaffed public-health system. It isn’t intended to exclude anyone based on colour, race, or religion. THAT discrimination has been endemic in Jamaican hotels and businesses for decades.

Ras Karbi’s Discrimination explains:

Now I had to make a living I had a family.

Food we must eat and clothes we must wear.

Never had a bus fare not a red cent around.

I took a walk downtown.

A job must be found.

A sign said “Help Wanted:

Long hair freaky people need not apply.

No wan’ no ol nayga no Rastafari”

Let’s recap. “Discrimination” is prima facie unconstitutional and infringes on equality rights. BUT even “discrimination” is sometimes for the greater good and also lawful if it’s shown to be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. To establish this, Government must prove:

1. The proposed measures’ objective must be “sufficiently important” to warrant overriding a fundamental right. An objective must relate to pressing and substantial societal concerns.

2. The measures must be fair - not arbitrary - carefully designed to achieve the objective and rationally connected to that objective.

3. The measures should impair the right as little as possible.

4. There must be proportionality between the measures’ effects and the objective. The more severe the effects, the more important the objective.

So me put mi dreadlocks under mi tam.

I step inside to ask him why.

“You’re a fine young man,” he said. “I think you will do.

You look ambitious, intelligent too.

Take off your hat, have a seat my son.

I will be back with the application.”

So me tek off mi hat just like ’im request.

You shoulda see ’im hiding under di desk.

I let the dreadlocks down ’til it touch di ground.

’Im run so fast ’im tumble down.

I say, “Wait, Mr Wicked. Don’t run like yu mad.

I represent the Almighty God.

Equality and justice stand for all.

Discrimination against Rasta must fall.”

The irrefutable FACT is that infected unvaccinated require hospitalisation (and isolation) at large multiples of infected vaccinated. The add-on effect of this FACT is an unbearable burden placed on Jamaica’s hospital resources by infected unvaccinated. As a direct consequence, others needing crucial non-COVID treatment are turned away or surgeries postponed, with likely dire consequences to them and public health.

That vaccine mandates’ objective is clearly “sufficiently important” to permit “discrimination” is unanswerable.

SENSIBLE VACCINE MANDATES

Government must design mandates to ensure that they infringe “as little as possible” and aren’t arbitrary. These are what I’ve been calling “sensible vaccine mandates” for months. So access to public healthcare must remain unrestricted regardless of vaccination status. But any restriction intended to reduce community spread and protect Jamaica’s public health (for example, restricted access to sporting or entertainment events) would satisfy all tests. Inability to attend these events isn’t oppressive but can achieve and is proportional to the national objective.

So Big Business can get off Chris Tufton’s back on this one. Don’t get me wrong. Opinions are free, so most people can afford at least one. Big Business has as much right to publish opinions as less influential citizens like ye olde scribe. But perception of Big Business’ influence on Governments is that it’s pervasive. So in my opinion, when making public allegations that Government is “discriminatory”, Big Business has an obligation to us less powerful to establish its non-interference intention by disclosing the facts grounding the allegations; acknowledge “discrimination”, although always bad, can sometimes be the lesser of two evils; then say why it opines that vaccine “discrimination” is not so in this case. Just throwing “discrimination” around like scattershot, without more, is, in my opinion, reckless and insensitive.

The assertion that “the decision would go against the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans who have made a personal choice” isn’t based on fact. Don Anderson’s late August-early September 2021 Poll found that 20 per cent were vaccinated; 25 per cent more said they would get vaccinated; 20 per cent said they weren’t sure; and only 25 per cent said they wouldn’t take the jab.

By no stretch of the imagination is 25 per cent an “overwhelming majority of Jamaicans”. Some of the 25 per cent gave multiple reasons for rejecting the jab Fiifty-four per cent of them (13.5 per cent of all responders) said they don’t trust the vaccine. Why would that surprise anyone in an undereducated, underinformed country? This isn’t a “personal choice” by all 13.5 per cent. Many just need convincing that vaccines’ worldwide success rate isn’t fake news. Others want privacy, which they won’t get at vaccination centres. A small minority are, however, stubborn, “educated” anti-vaxxers. For THEM, I’ve zero sympathy or patience.

Twenty-nine per cent of the 25 per cent (7.5 per cent of responders) said they weren’t sure about it, while 22 per cent (five per cent of responders) reasoned that there are too many side effects. So five per cent of Jamaicans are uninformed or misinformed. Government should inform them.

Seventeen per cent of all responders reported they weren’t ready to be vaccinated. Less than 10 per cent said they hadn’t got around to it. These are people Government should target with pop-up vaccination sites and private practitioners administering doses while patients tell nosey neighbours they’re going for regular check-ups.

WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS

Only four per cent of respondents cited religious reasons for not taking the jab. That’s worth repeating. ONLY FOUR PER CENT of Jamaicans are listening to religious whack-jobs raving about the mark of the beast!

Eight per cent of respondents said they needed to be more educated about the vaccine; had concerns about underlying illnesses; were turned off by crowded vaccines sites; didn’t see the vaccine as able to prevent COVID-19 or simply didn’t want to take the jab. This is another group Government can target.

So “scientific” poll numbers say that at least 75 per cent of Jamaicans (or the “overwhelming majority”) should respond favourably to vaccine mandates, which are likely to encourage them to overcome, however grudgingly, any concerns. That’s the definition of “herd immunity”.

But Stewart’s opinion that “the decision would go against the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans who have made a personal choice” has been enthusiastically supported by another newspaper that even quoted one entertainer asking Tufton to resign because of vaccine mandates not yet designed or imposed. Really? Seriously? For THIS you want Tufton to resign? Not Cornwall Regional? Not poorly maintained hospitals or overworked, underpaid healthcare workers? Not abysmal vaccine rollout logistics?

THIS? Surely you jest!

In any event, if Jamaica was governed by “the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans who have made a personal choice”, then we’d have no motor-vehicle speed mandates; no motorcycle helmet mandates; no seat-belt mandates; and definitely no taxes. That isn’t realistic.

Yes, Government is by the people. So we have elections; a Parliament of peoples’ representatives; and a free(ish) press. But Government must also be FOR the people - ALL the people, not only big contributors to the revenue.

Peace and Love!

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com