Entry 2158, on 2021-10-14 at 22:28:36 (Rating 4, Politics)
The thing some people don't understand about conspiracies is that they are sometimes true. It's easy to mock a person or group as conspiracy theorists, and insinuate that that alone is enough to discredit them, but that isn't always true. Sometimes there really is a conspiracy, and other times what is labelled a conspiracy is really just a fair and reasonable opinion.
I do have to say that most conspiracies are fake, and are merely a misinterpretation of relatively innocuous events, or the result of conclusions based on false information. But don't assume that is always the case.
An example of this has recently become prominent here in New Zealand, and it is related to (maybe you guessed it) COVID vaccinations. Before I go any further I want to say that while I am not as positive as many others about this vaccination drive, and I am very uncomfortable about any mandate involving personal health issues, I do support vaccination in general, and I have had two doses of the Pfizer vaccine myself. So I am certainly not anti-vax and barely even vaccine hesitant.
So here's how this relates to conspiracies. About a year ago, the mainstream media here in New Zealand (who many would say are notoriously left-biased) published this article...
Headline: Jacinda Ardern confident enough Kiwis will get COVID-19 vaccine for herd immunity without being forced to.
Date: 22/09/2020
Key quotes: Conspiracy theorists have claimed a COVID-19 vaccine, when available, will be "forced" on everyone - including Kiwis. The Government has rubbished those claims, made most notably by Jami-Lee Ross and Billy Te Kahika's Advance NZ. On Tuesday Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern went a step further, saying not only will there be no forced vaccinations, but those who choose to opt-out won't face any penalties at all.
So, in this case the "conspiracy theorists" have been absolutely correct, because just over one year later, we now have mandated vaccinations along with major penalties for those who don't get vaccinated.
The government's defenders claim that the situation has changed during the time since the original statement was made, but that isn't really the point. The fact is the conspiracy turned out to be true, and whether mandates are justified or not is only secondary to this fact.
As I said, I am uncomfortable about a government forcing people into participating in a health initiative for "the benefit of society as a whole". I think, on balance, that COVID vaccination is a good idea, but it's not as straightforward as the government propaganda campaigns, which the media are complicit in, make it seem.
The left love catch-phrases like "my body, my choice" in relation to abortion, but they don't seem quote so enthusiastic about it in this context. With vaccination they say it is about protecting other lives, but is that a consideration when it comes to the deliberate killing of an unborn child? Apparently it's OK then. Their inconsistency and dishonesty is truly amazing.
So let's get back to the original statement, and look at the bigger problem, and especially possible excuses for this apparent reneging on a firmly stated intention, if not a promise.
First, there were various groups at the time who were skeptical about the government's intentions, and said so. They were dismissed by suggesting they were conspiracy theorists. Well, maybe they were, but they were also correct in what they said. This incident gives people who follow conspiracies good reason to continue to support them. The conspiracy theorists were right that time, who's to say they won't also be right in the future?
Second, maybe the prime minister was genuine when she said no mandate would be used, but the situation has changed sufficiently in the intervening year that a genuine statement then has unfortunately been reversed, but through necessity.
Well, that is possible, but the PM needs to be more careful about what assurances she offers those who might be skeptical of her direction. Should she have known that the situation would change in future and that the promise of no vaccine mandates was unrealistic? Well, yes. The experts she claims she follows when making policy decisions should have told her this, because that is the path all pandemics take.
So she should have said that there are no current plans for forced vaccinations, but that might be (unfortunately) necessary in future if the infection rate or death rate of the virus changes. That's not quite as reassuring as saying it won't happen at all, but it is a lot more honest.
And that gets to the issue of honesty. I have said all along that I don't trust the PM and think her only skill is propaganda. Maybe this is another example of that. Maybe she knew all along that mandated vaccinations would be needed, but it didn't suit her agenda to say it at the time.
So this gets back to that classic choice when evaluating politicians: is she corrupt or incompetent? It's got to be one or the other, or (more likely) both. She must have known that future mutations in the virus might have made stronger measures necessary, but she neither mentioned this directly or even acknowledged the possibility. If she didn't know that was likely, she was incompetent; if she did know it, and deliberately failed to take account of it in her communications, then she was corrupt.
Third, is it possible to interpret the statement, and subsequent events, in a way that they are compatible? Well maybe, but it would require some fairly convoluted explanations. For example, what does "forced vaccinations" mean? Is saying you can't work if you aren't vaccinated a form of force? Does force imply legal penalties? But even if you can distort the facts to fit that view, the next statement, that "those who choose to opt-out won't face any penalties at all" is fairly clear, and incompatible with what has happened.
So there seems to be no way out: the PM made a statement, then did the opposite a year later. There are two big problems here: as I said earlier, the fact that this gives genuinely crazy conspiracies (as opposed to those with some degree of credibility) extra credence. People can point out that these theories were labelled as conspiracies, but turned out to be true, so what other conspiracies might also be true? Good question.
And maybe more importantly, it shows we can't believe a word the government, and especially this PM, says. If such a clear and important statement like this later turns out to be untrue, what else that we are being told is also untrue? Distrust in politicians is already high; this isn't likely to make that any better.
I completely understand how events change and how a statement made at one point might not be able to be honoured later, but if there is a chance the underlying situation might change, then be careful what you say. Ardern is an experienced politician, and specialises in communicaitons (some might unkindly call it propaganda, but that makes no difference to the point I'm making) so there is no excuse for this sort of thing. She should be accurate and honest. That way we all know the real situation, and can make sensible decisions.
So next time someone says "that's just another conspiracy", ask yourself "but is it true?"
Comment 1 by Jim on 2021-10-27 at 14:11:10:
Ardern is the most dishonest PM ever. Now she makes the theft of our water infrastructure mandatory after telling us councils could opt in.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-10-27 at 16:08:14:
Well, you could make a case to say Ardern is the worst, but it's hard to know for sure. I certainly find her extremely untrustworthy. There are many statements she has made then done the complete opposite a bit later on. Nothing she says can be taken as truth, that's for sure.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE