The Dangers of Punishing People for Their Beliefs or Health Choices

History has shown that any time a state adopts policies that are strictly based on punishing those for their beliefs with very little debate, things don’t end well.

Today I’ll try to explain the deficiencies in the current arguments to force others to vaccinate or to withhold their rights based on that choice. I will do so using a very good analogy that many can relate to. 

My analogy will attempt to show how we stumbled past the stage of “healthy debate over beliefs and rational rules” to “punishment”. The punishment stage is a very dangerous stage that does not work in a free democracy. History has shown that any time a state adopts policies that are strictly based on punishing those for their beliefs with very little debate, things don’t end well. 

This analogy will portray a very realistic but unsettling future if we continue down the path we’ve been on for two years now. 

The Gun Rights Debate

Before I go further, I have thought over the gun-rights debate in my head for years and I am still not entirely sure where I stand. So rest assured that this essay is written from a mostly unbiased perspective on this particular issue. I’m always up for healthy debate and rational rules but my goal today is to portray what happens when we go too far. 

Imagine the following argument and think in your head on what side of the argument you are on: 

All guns in Canada should be banned outright. Guns provide no benefits to society and can only cause injuries and death. No one should be allowed to own a gun. Gun violence is a public health issue and should be addressed as such. 

Vs. 

Yes guns are dangerous, however every human has the right to own one (with restrictions). Used responsibly, they can be used for sustainable hunting practices. Also, every human has the right to protect themselves. Regardless, banning them would simply create a counter-productive black-market. 

Now let’s imagine that Joe supports banning guns but his neighbor John has the opposing view. 

Healthy Debate and Rational Rule Stage

Joe wants to see all guns banned. He thinks all retailers should be forbidden from selling firearms from now on. Additionally, hunting should be banned as well. He supports this as guns cause thousands of injuries and deaths each year. 

John opposes the new laws being proposed. But he and Joe can still get along on other topics as Joe’s motives so far have only relied on healthy debate and proposing rational rules that could theoretically mean less harm to people. Joe does not want to see John punished simply for opposing his view. 

The government adopts the new law banning guns. John is upset and peacefully advocates to amend the rules. He has stopped hunting but still owns some firearms in his home. Many point out that gun violence will not change as the overwhelming majority of gun related crime prior to the ban occurred with unregistered, illegally acquired firearms. Nevertheless, the public supports this new law. Most Canadians don’t see anything wrong with taking away the right to own a gun. They claim that “your right to own a gun does not supersede every citizen’s right to be safe from all guns”. 

But the general public does not see gun owners as bad people. They simply see them as having a different view on their utility then they do. 

Punishment Stage

Now let’s imagine It’s been 12 months since the Canadian government passed the law banning all guns. Some Canadians still hold guns in their private residences. Many still believe this law is unconstitutional and peacefully and respectfully protest it. 

Even though gun injuries and deaths have actually gone up in the year since this law was passed, the government claims that these rules are having tremendous benefits and work. The only reason that we are still seeing surges in gun violence is because of the 10% of the population that “is not doing the right thing” by turning over their guns and adopting the best public health practices adopted by science. 

With the proposed threat that; gun violence is a crisis and affecting all Canadians, the government passes a new ID law that will require people to register as “safe citizens”. 

This new certificate program requires all Canadians to obtain a QR code after simply acknowledging a set of questions denying that they own any guns. This QR code identifies them as “safe citizens”. The new law requires anyone who has ever registered a gun in the past to now come forward and sign a statement acknowledging the new law and state that they do not own a firearm in their house. 

The QR code will be required to enter most public spaces and to travel. The government also encourages most employers to make it a condition of employment. The government is justifying these new laws by vilifying one group as reckless and dangerous as they could potentially be holding a gun. These laws are praised by many public health advocates as addressing the public health crisis of gun violence. They often brag that these policies are supported by science. 

Most citizens and the media support these new rules as it is only affecting 10% of the population who are refusing to sign such a statement. Most holdouts are not doing so because they own a gun (as many don’t) but on moral grounds as they disagree with it. Many view this as simple stubbornness and a misinformed “anti-science” stance. The Canadian PM goes on television to remind Canadians that “they should be angry” with the remaining 10% gun owning population. He stresses that this group is responsible for the rise in gun deaths and injuries in Canada which are filling our hospitals and delaying important surgeries. 

The PM further reminds Canadians that this 10% made a choice and if they don’t like the new rules, they have a simple solution. They just need to change their belief and adopt the ideology that we have outlined as correct. 

After a wave of gun incidents in Toronto involving rival drug gangs, the media decries that the government must do more. The authorities agree to implement thousands of police checkpoints across the whole country. Now citizens will be stopped and searched many times a day when out of the house. These measures are promised as temporary to fight the recent surge in gun violence. Many are upset with these rules, but the Canadian PM is quick to once again remind everyone who’s fault this is. The remaining gun owners are the reason that our hospitals are overwhelmed and they are endangering the fabric of our society. We wouldn’t need these measures if it wasn’t for “those people”. 

Gun violence continues to escalate, mostly due to a thriving and profitable black market which fuels illegal and nefarious activities. The government refuses to acknowledge that their policies have backfired as this would be political suicide and it is an election year. They fear that the fringe group that has been punished severely so far is reaching a wider audience with their information on how the current laws are not working. The government moves to coordinate with social media companies and news organizations to tackle dangerous “misinformation”. 

Public Health authorities warn that misinformation is killing Canadians. They claim that statements such as “gun bans don’t work” or “guns don’t kill, people do” are incredibly dangerous and may lead Canadians to be radicalized and give them the desire to actually own a gun. These statements are flagged as hate speech and as inciting violence. Anyone proposing such a statement or opposing the current government rules are labeled as “pro-violence” and “anti-science”. 

Public Health authorities and politicians constantly warn Canadians that they should avoid associating with this fringe group of “pro-gun-violence” supporters as they are dangerous and most likely racists and misogynystic. The PM who was originally elected on his desire to promote tolerance and disavow hatred, begins frequently asking Canadians rhetorically if they should still tolerate these people. 

Six months later, a new law is passed that leads to the imprisonment of most remaining suspected gun owners. This new law is passed without any debate or even requiring a vote as it is done so under the emergency measures act and supported by public health. Suspected gun owners receive sentences that require them to be re-educated on the dangers of guns and are released after a thorough search of their homes. 

After three years of these policies, the massive additional police presence throughout the country eventually leads to a slight reduction in gun violence. The government, public health authorities and the media claim to have “Won the War on Guns!”  

The police checkpoints which were supposed to be temporary remain in place indefinitely as the government shows how effective they have been thus far. The authorities stress that they need these checkpoints and the overall additional police presence to deal with the threat of radicalized people who may still secretly be hiding guns. 

Many in the public enjoy the added sense of safety so they welcome them to stay. 

5 Years Later 

Because the gun bans were supported by science and public health, the silencing of dissenting opinions on the topic was entirely supported by the public and many intellectuals. 

After the current government wins another election, they propose sweeping new laws supported by science and public health authorities related to fighting climate change, educational curriculums and other health care choices. Dissenting opinions or debates regarding any new laws has become a form of misinformation. 

The government decides that any new laws supported by science or public health experts cannot be questioned or debated as those would be “anti-science” practices that could jeopardize the public. 

10 Years Later 

The current government has now been in power for 15 years and has made it a habit to only pass laws that are supported by science. This saves the public from timely and costly debates and procedures. Recent polls by the new state owned (and only legal) social media platform indicates that 100% of Canadians support the current government and their policies. 

The PM boasts in these recent polls and brags that science has prevailed!!