Meanwhile in Howard Springs…
— Avi Yemini ???? (@OzraeliAvi) December 3, 2021
But wait, in case you do not know, this happened inside the Howard Springs COVID quarantine facility (AKA ChinkFlu Concentration Camp). She is already “voluntarily” imprisoned and the breaking of a line results in a heavy monetary punishment to somebody who is not working.
How come the Aussies are not up in arms and hanging government bureaucrats is hard to understand … oh wait.
That kind of explains it, right?
PS: Might as well meme the shit out of this.
I just don’t see people who are armed rebelling against what are perceived as minor, um, inconveniences.
There seems to be quite a bit of space between this sort of camp and a certain other sort of camp.
Just my $0.02.
How would you define a camp where people deemed unwanted/undesirable by fickle bureaucrats are concentrated and not allowed to leave under penalty of the law?
While I see your point, the involuntary residents aren’t being tortured, starved, worked to death, etc..
Just to be a bit hyperbolic: would you use deadly to avoid going there?
Yes, they do have such a nice golden cage….
Rick, yes.
Merriam-Webster says a concentration camp is “a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard —used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners”. So it fits the general meaning, just as FDR’s prison camps for Japanese-Americans do. The general term does not require them to be places of torture or starvation. Clearly it’s not an extermination camp, as most Nazi concentration camps in fact were.
If you do want to reserve the term for Nazi camps, you could call them “prison camps” or “internment camps”. But it doesn’t seem that the term is in fact necessarily reserved that way.
@pkoning: Good point. Thanks for the clarification.
Don’t forget the concentration camps used by Woodrow Wilson’s administration against German-Americans during WWI.
Everyone else seems to, but, yes, Woody and his friends interred German-Americans. Seized their assets. Shut down their businesses. Ruined their lives.
Just like Australia is now doing to the resisters. Not much difference between huge fines and outright seizing assets.
Yes. It is entirely proper to object to ANY infringement of our liberties.
Remember- historically governments have always been the greatest violators of human rights, and the greatest murderers in history. And they always claim to act for “the common good.”
It does not matter if it is the most luxurious prison in the universe. It is still a prison.
Theresienstadt was every bit as much a concentration camp as Auschwitz.
As an aside the term “concentration camp” first appeared during the Boer war when the English imprisoned Afrikaner civilians to starve the Boer fighters
What LAW? Did their Parliament pass a bill authorizing it?
listen to the Woman in the full unherd video. She found out she got fourteen days in the camp not because she was COVID positive, but because she lied to the police. No court, no prosecutor, no formal charges, just some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in their Aussie CDC saying lock the lying bitch up.
https://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2021/12/02/free-holiday/
I may be missing dry humor. Do you believe that is a minor inconvenience, to be held against your will when you do not have COVID in a fenced facility in the middle of nowhere? I’ve mentioned before that my mother was forced to go to a sanitorium for many weeks because they suspected she had TB. (She did not.) That meant leaving four children without a mother, hiring someone to care for our home when we could ill afford it, as she was unable to work, and my mother being locked in a building with other patients with actual TB. She did learn to paint ceramics, but strangely, she never did it again once released. I still have the mug she made me.
I live in a small house and I rarely go out. I’m just not all that gregarious. But if you told me I couldn’t go out, I would be very, very unhappy. I’m not suggesting that armed rebellion is the solution, but the inability to do so may give the government a certain amount of latitude to restrict rights in a nonsensical, even tyrannical manner. There is a reason for very good reason for 2A.
@PermanentFacepalm: I believe that you have supported my point.
This “camp” situation, or being forced to stay in your home, is angering, but not your line in the sand to use deadly force.
People would need to be harmed and thus implicitly threatening harm to me before I would consider going V for Vendetta.
I guess Australia doesn’t have a Constitution to speak of, but under the US Constitution I know you can’t be locked up without first being convicted in a trial by a jury of your peers. Arbitrary imprisonment is not a minor matter. In this particular case, where it involves imprisonment in company of people who may be suffering from an infectious disease, it is arguably a situation covered by the Justification laws of NH.
The whole “stay in your home” thing at least leaves you with your family, your pets, your stuff. You can work from home, get deliveries, and life moves on, if a bit constrained. And, let’s be honest, you can talk to my neighbors or visit relatives without anyone getting their panties in a twist or imposing a $5,000 fine.
A camp?
These people are watched 24/7 — that’s how they knew she “crossed the line”. Where’s their family? Where are their pets? Who’s watching their homes? Can they work?
From where I sit, they’re being deprived of liberty and “pursuit of happiness”; do they have to wait for being deprived of life to resist?
Plus, there’s the fact they’ve done nothing wrong and aren’t a danger to anyone. They tested negative for a bad flu — yet they’re being locked up for weeks without trial or chance of appeal. That whole right to a trial thing dates back to 1215 and the Magna Carta.
I’m in favor of quarantines when the risk is high enough, but COVID-19 has fallen far short of that.
It’s hard to fix someone elses plumbing if you are quarantined in your own home.
Or assemble a widget.
How about producing the food, TP, baking the bread, stocking the shelves, driving the delivery truck when you are stuck inside your home.
Or is it just some people that need to be locked up?
Or does everyone gets locked up, and f**k the knuckle dragging manual laborers?
How about the inability to have the freedom to make choices, to go outside for fresh air, or down to the store for a soda.
House arrest is still arrest. It is still a restriction of one’s freedoms.
Historical point. Napoleon’s prison on Elba was sumptuous. He had everything he could want, except one thing. Freedom to leave.
A gilded cage is still a cage.
Al Capone’s prison cell, full of fine furniture and with excellent food and drink, was still a prison cell.
And that’s the thing. Where the flying copulation does any government get the right to say you can’t leave your house?
Doesn’t matter what the walls look like. Still a prison.
It’s a minor inconvenience to be forcibly locked up for weeks? Then being charged for for the camp costs? Are you first name friends with bezos/buffett/etc.? That pos in the video will happily kill anyone that violates his rules, if told/allowed too.
@EN2 SS: If actual, rather than implied, deadly force was being used, the game would change.
A threatened fine for not wearing a mask when you go to the laundry is not my line in the sand.
Threatened fine? That’s not what this post is about; it’s about being jailed for being near someone said to have the CCP virus, and being captured and re-imprisoned when you escape from that jail.
What happens when they impose the fine and payment is refused?
What would happen if everyone in the camp just started walking towards the front gate?
I’ve seen pictures of a family — two small children, a woman in a wheelchair — being taken to one of these camps escorted by a soldier carrying his rifle. WTF? What’s the rifle for?
It’s for the threat of deadly force. Under what conditions does the threat become the use of deadly force? If there are no such conditions, why send the soldier?
In civilized countries, it is the threat of deadly force that justifies defense by deadly force. There is no requirement to wait for the actual initiation of force. That’s very clear in New Hampshire. Or in Wisconsin, come to think of it.
Then I’m happy to hear you’re a good little sheeple, enjoy your (short) freedom, before the sheepdogs show up at your door.
@EN2 SS: I hope and pray that we won’t have to make this decision in America.
Hope and pray all you can, but we don’t have a choice in what the fascists are bringing to our lives. You better be ready, because it will get much worse before things either get better or the country will end.
ALL laws have an implied threat of force. No exceptions. The State, at some point, will kill you if you do not follow each and every one of their arbitrary rules.
Power ALWAYS comes at the muzzle of a gun. Always.
Why do you think those nice officers carry a Glock? Decoration?
Even the Nazi camps did not start with torture and starvation.
It took a few years to reach that point – people tend to forget or gloss over that fact.
@rick…
Sadly, you are correct.
What happened to the Gab posting button?
Why is my mental Juke Box playing the “Liberty Bell March” and visions of a giant foot, with an announcer saying “and now for something completely different” dancing in my head?
@Nuke Road Warrior: I appreciate your humorous “spin” on this situation. The more that I read or see, the more that I am mentally walking back my earlier comments. Sigh.