Flat White

The looming medical apartheid

12 June 2021

3:01 PM

12 June 2021

3:01 PM

As is well known, the Afrikaans word apartheid means “apartness”. In South Africa, this involved keeping blacks and whites apart. We have moved on from that of course, but it seems that notions of apartheid still persist amongst some of our elites.  

We have now arrived at the very dangerous place where we find the emergence of medical apartheid – resulting in various groups being forcibly kept apart. In particular, I refer to the growing demands being made by state and business elites to have mandatory corona vaccinations, along with things like vaccine passports. 

and others have long warned that this can only result in a two-tiered society – a new apartheid. There will be the privileged members of the upper class who have happily gone along with these vaccinations. And there will be a new underclass comprised of those who for various reasons have genuine concerns about the Covid vaccines and are proceeding cautiously here. 

They will become a new class of lepers, shunned by society and increasingly discriminated against. And all this is very real indeed. We have seen far too many governments and businesses using carrot and stick approaches to coerce people into getting vaccinated. 


But as various medical codes of ethics make perfectly clearall medical treatments must be fully voluntary and must involve informed consent. No coercion should take place, and no manipulation should occur. And that applies to vaccinations as well. I have often quoted from the Australian Immunisation Handbook which says this: “[Vaccines] must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.

But the various carrot and stick approaches being used by governments and businesses are doing exactly that: they are using undue pressure, coercion and manipulation. And every day we learn of more and more such coercive measures being utilised. Consider just one example of this from overseas:

The Premier of the Canadian province of Manitoba today officially launched an immunization card program for those who have “received both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine,” allowing the vaccinated freedom over those who choose not to get the experimental shots. The announcement comes a month after a source within the Manitoba government warned LifeSiteNews about it. Those who sign up for Manitoba’s “immunization card” will have to self-isolate for a two-week period neither after returning to the province nor if they are said to have been a close contact to a person with a confirmed case of coronavirus. 

“Manitobans have told us that getting back to the things they love and miss is one of the biggest incentives to getting vaccinated. As a government, we are doing everything we can to bolster vaccine availability and accessibility, and equipping Manitobans with the information and support they need to make the right decision to protect themselves, their loved ones and their community,” said Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister about the new immunization card in a press release sent out today. Those with the cards will also be allowed to visit family in hospitals or other health care facilities. The card will be available to people who currently have a Manitoba health card, which is the only provincial health care insurance program available.   

And Australia is also up to its ears in such coercive incentive and inducement measures as well. Our Therapeutic Goods Administration is now happy it seems to run with such carrot and stick approaches to the vaxxAs one medical website explains: 

Getting vaccinated for covid is about to become a whole lot sweeter with health professionals, businesses and the media now able to offer rewards to the public for doing so. An amendment made last week by the Therapeutic Goods Administration relaxed the rules around companies offering incentives for covid vaccines by changing how the drugs could be advertised. 

Under the changes, which are valid until the end of 2022, a medical clinic may offer a reward to a person who has been fully vaccinated, whether it be their staff or patient. The rewards can be monetary, vouchers, discounts or membership points for a loyalty scheme but excludes alcohol, tobacco or medicines (other than listed medicines). 

The offers or advertisements must also not reference specific vaccine brands, compare covid vaccines, contain false or misleading statements or promote any vaccine that has not been approved by the TGA. “These arrangements permit health professionals, businesses and media outlets to develop their own materials about TGA-approved COVID-19 vaccines,” the TGA said. 

But the allowance of “rewards” in exchange for vaccination has caught the attention of critics who say incentives should not be supplementing, or replacing, the governments public health campaign for vaccination. Adjunct Associate Professor Ken Harvey, a public health physician with an interest in the promotion and regulation of therapeutic goods, told TMR he had concerns about allowing complementary medicines to be used as rewards. 

“I think getting Bunnings and other companies to offer rewards is fine. That’s commercial, but allowing health practitioners is crazy stuff,” he said. “My concern is that allowing these kinds of gifts could open the floodgates to complementary medicine companies who want to offer ‘immune boosters’ to the public.” 

Professor Harvey also said the arrangement of offering a reward in exchange for patients getting the covid vaccine could be perceived as an inducement. According to The Medical Board of Australia’s code of conduct, healthcare professionals are prohibited from offering inducements or entering into arrangements that could be perceived as providing inducements. 

“I think it is problematic for health practitioners to be offering inducements to their patients, as surely, it’s much more likely that the patient would come back to them. At the time of publication, Professor Harvey was awaiting a response from the TGA to clarify whether gifts of complementary medicines were allowed under the changes.  

This is scary stuff indeed, and we are now seeing the rise of ‘health fascism,’ as some commentators are already calling this. This is not just a blatant violation of key codes of medical ethics, but it really is leading to a new form of “apartness”. Indeed, one Black American university professor has just referred to this as a new form of apartheid: 

In a blistering testimony comparing the current push for mass vaccination to pre-Civil Rights era denial of human rights for the black population, a Dean at Brandeis University gave her support for an Ohio bill that would permit residents to decline to be vaccinated against the novel coronavirus. Dr. Erika Smith, who is the Dean of Academic Services at Brandeis and formerly an adjunct lecturer in the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, said that “those who love freedom must act before it’s too late.” 

House Bill 248 states that Ohioans may decline to receive the jab as long as they submit a written statement or verbally declare that they decline to be vaccinated. The bill further clarifies that “When declining the vaccination, the individual … shall not be required to do anything beyond submitting the written statement or making the verbal declaration described in this section.” 

Top of Form 

Bottom of Form 

“Current disparate treatment runs rife across this nation, spreading like wildfire, demanding in exchange for job security and participation in society the injection of medical treatments that are devoid of both FDA approval and legal recourse when damaging side effects occur, is draconian at best and criminal at worst,” Smith said. 

Known as the Vaccine Choice & Anti-Discrimination Act, HB 248 was introduced April 6 2021 by State Rep. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester). “This is a matter of freedom,” Gross said in a press release. “Without the exemption provisions this bill provides, the notion of a vaccine passport could easily lead to a class system in Ohio where segregation and discrimination will proliferate.” 

Dr. Smith said she worries that vaccine mandates would result in a “two-tier society,” one in which citizens are required to provide proof of vaccination in order to simply participate in normal activities. This, she warned, would create an apartheid state, with citizens divided by vaccination status. “The idea of mandatory vaccinations for people to keep their jobs smacks of the same abuse that legislators have historically used against whatever people group they perceive to be inferior,” she said. “Forced vaccinations, medical passports, tracking and tracing, are all forms of medical apartheid.” 

During her testimony supporting HB 248, Smith shared that her paternal grandmother was born on a plantation in Alabama. Her parents fought for justice during the Civil Rights movement so that Smith would be free, with equal privileges under the law. But mandatory jabs and a “show-your papers” culture requiring proof of vaccination would change that. “Any student of history clearly sees the distinct parallels between segregation due to race and segregation due to vaccine status,” Smith said. 

“Today, citizens are fighting against the tyranny of government officials and the bullying from people in their daily lives who expect them to relinquish their God-given freedoms, upheld in the Constitution, to the state, and to obey mandates, mere words of men, which are not laws.” State Rep. Tom Young (R-Dayton) responded favorably to Smith’s testimony. “You are spot-on about what this bill is,” he said. “It’s a freedom bill.” 

All this sounds like a new apartheid to me. Be afraid, be very afraid. 

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne cultural commentator.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.


Show comments
Close