A Letter to MP Rob Butler – March 2021
Dear Mr Rob Butler MP,
I am one of your Aylesbury constituents and I write to you regarding the ongoing issue of this Government’s response to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (“coronavirus” hereafter). My name is Luke, and I write as a care home worker, an educated, knowledgeable and deeply concerned citizen. The methods and means used by this Government to allay the impact of this new virus has been misguided, ineffectual at best, at preventing the UK from reaching the highest death toll in Europe; at worst, malfeasant, myopic policy decisions directly propelled the UK to the highest death toll in Europe. I find this outcome deeply concerning. Underpinning the UK’s failed response to the public health crisis represented by coronavirus is the Coronavirus Act 2020.
I am writing to you to encourage you, to impel you in the strongest possible terms, to vote to repeal the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“the Act”) at the earliest possible opportunity. At the time of writing, that appears to be likely to be on March 22nd 2021 when parliament debates a petition to that effect. In the course of composing this letter, the situation has continued to change at an alarming rate; it would be impossible to present an exhaustive reportage in anything approaching adequate depth and be in any way concise, so I restrict myself in what follows to the most pressing aspects of the argument for repealing the Act.
To begin, I must echo the words of a fellow Conservative MP, Sir Charles Walker, when he said back in September that, “Ninety minutes to debate the renewal of an Act that fundamentally has changed the nature of the relationship between the state and citizens is not good enough” and branded the paltry proceedings an “utter disgrace”. My intention is not to insult or chagrin, but to reiterate the sentiment that such sweeping changes must be afforded the proper degree of scrutiny, consideration, and debate. It is my hope that you will take the time to read what follows fully and rationally, demonstrating the level of attention such matters demand. Whether after that you decide to vote to repeal or not I leave up to you, but, I implore you, take due pause over the repercussions.
I will constrain my argument to the realm of facts – the same facts as presented by our own Government and vetted by the state-approved “fact-checkers” and media outlets – and keep feelings to a tasteful minimum; how fond we are of the rational, scientific approach. Primary among those facts is the statistical evidence from the UK showing how coronavirus infections and deaths continued to rise until roughly 3 weeks after the rollout of our vaccine program. Meaning that, according to official figures, the numbers of cases and deaths continued to increase in the months of November to January despite the lockdown measures introduced; excess death figures have continued to plummet since this point in late January despite the staged relaxation of those same measures, which officially and logically indicates the alleged effectiveness of the vaccination rollout and not the efficacy of Lockdowns or house-arrest for healthy people.
Quite apart from the broader statistical picture of the pandemic in the UK – including the unjustified nature of locking down in the first place given the vanishingly small risk of death for otherwise healthy, productive citizens – there are an overabundance of consequences that derive directly from or comport with “the spirit” of the Act which warrant close attention in the case for repeal. Bearing in mind how important the “spirit of the rules” has been to proponents of this government’s coronavirus countermeasures to date. These will be ranged below in numbered subsections to keep the remainder of this letter maximally concise.
1. The Act grounds the imposition of quarantines for the healthy – house arrests – and Lockdowns, which in many cases either violate or go against the spirit of much extant human rights, care, and equality legislation:
Care Act 2014 – Local Authorities released from duties imposed by the Care Act 2014 [LAs still able to carry out at their discretion, no longer compelled] incl. preparing care or support plans among other things.
Mental Capacity Act 2005 – actions taken by the government in the capacity as carers for people who really lack capacity – dictating their needs, vaccinations, lockdowns and other gov’t coronavirus countermeasures – violates this legislation on account of the harmful effects of those same measures [see below]; actions taken towards members of the public as though they lack capacity who in fact do not lack capacity further violates this legislation, Section 1, which states “A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity” and “A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success”, neither of which provisions are adhered to under the Act [cf. 2., 3., 4. & 6.]
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 2 Right to Life; Article 3 Prohibition from Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment; Article 5 Right to Liberty; Article 8 Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, Home and Correspondence; Article 5 Right to not be Discriminated Against [as well as the UDHR UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ECHR European Convention on Human Rights] all aspects of Lockdown, isolation, “social distance”, etc.
Equality Act 2010 – gov’t countermeasures measures have forced businesses [“The Equality Act applies to all those providing goods, services and facilities in Great Britain”] to discriminate against employees, customers, clients, etc., based on a protected characteristic either possessed by or perceived to be possessed by the individual per Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010:
“10 Religion or belief
(1) Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.” [emphasis added]
Additionally, restrictions centred around compliance with measures such as Lockdowns, face-masking and/or vaccination force those parties to further discriminate against anyone who is medically unable to participate therein – i.e. those medically exempt by dint of disability, pregnant women, etc. – which are themselves protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010; exclusion, derision, or stigmatisation suffered by any individual on the grounds of inability to assent to such measures is thus tantamount to violation of their human rights. Legal cases have been launched against similar measures in countries like Austria and Germany, whose courts have found Lockdowns to be unconstitutional; similar cases are mounting strength in the UK and around the world.
2. The Act grounds the imposition of quarantines for the healthy – house arrests – and Lockdowns; Lockdowns are demonstrably harmful: it is the case that countries that locked-down the hardest are among those countries – including the UK, USA, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, etc. – with the highest death rates, whereas countries like Sweden that adopted less draconian measures, and countries such as Australia, New Zealand and China that locked down but are distinctly unlike those worse-affected countries culturally, are able to boast considerably lower mortality rates.
Further, the effects both direct and indirect of the Lockdowns themselves are many, wide-reaching and harmful in their own right. In terms of health these harms are seen in escalating suicide rates and mental health problems resulting from isolation; increasing negative outcomes for non-coronavirus health problems resulting from narrow focus on coronavirus; vast reduction in the ability to mitigate coronavirus comorbidities such as obesity by restriction of movement, opportunity to exercise, and limiting dietary options to fast-food home-delivery. The economic harms of locking-down the entire country should be self-evident.
3. The Act grounds/grounded/could ground in future the closure of schools and childcare premises, which in turn motivates the moving of education to the virtual sphere, introducing further harm both measurable and extant, and risking unnecessary, unforeseeable, future harms to children. [See 1. above re human rights; 2. above re suicide, mental health, physical health, etc.]
Further, the mass imposition of face-coverings/masks in the population can only have a negative impact on children in terms of developmental psychology and neurobiology/-physiology. Particularly in younger children at critical developmental stages in terms of their brain development, but this is also true of all children, adolescents, and young adults up to their late twenties, as advances in the neuroscientific understanding of natural human cognitive development continue to demonstrate.
Additionally, these individual psychophysiological harms suffered by children on account of such measures, made possible by the Act, have direct correlates in the social dimension of cognition and development, meaning that not just individual children but future society is being harmed.
4. The Act grants powers for temporary registration of health and social workers and removes restrictions viz the same as regards the Mental Health, Mental Capacity and Care Acts. Cf. Untrained, unskilled health and social workers, newly-minted health professionals and marshals, with powers to detain and/or diagnose individuals with or of whom they have no previous professional, medical history or knowledge; the potential to cause harm is very real and the portion of excess deaths over the last year representing suicides and related negative outcomes in the area of mental health is a sobering testament to that fact. [cf. 1., 3. above]
5. The Act prevents proper investigations of deaths, autopsies and post-mortem examination, inquests into deaths related to coronavirus, and affecting cremation certification and registration of deaths related to coronavirus. It is particularly important to have these changes undone post-vaccination rollout and after the worst of the effects of the pandemic are behind us, as we are now; it is simple enough determine whether the death was caused by iatrogenic or viral means (e.g. particular lung damage in viral case) and it should therefore be of value to repeal the Act which prevents such sensible investigation from taking place.
Further, the reasoning behind these changes, and the supposed value of the Act at large, was supposedly and ostensibly to streamline certain processes to prevent the inundation of our health services with apocalyptic levels of critical patients (founded on the overblown and proven false modelling carried out by UCL last year). This deluge of coronavirus patients did not materialise last year, nor again this year, and additionally we are in a far better position in terms of hospital capacity that a year ago owing to the newly built Nightingale hospitals and the fact that “the average general and acute hospital bed usage was notably below 90%” this year compared with last. Therefore, the Act is neither relevant nor justified.
6. The Act empowers governments to not just produce and promote, but to impose the administration of vaccines and vaccinations against coronavirus by overt remit of healthcare and local authority representatives supported by a biased propaganda campaign, and/or covertly by systems of coercion and exclusion intended to manufacture consent and compel compliance. This consequence of the Act [see also point & above] constitutes – both hitherto and by precedent – a sustained period of medical experimentation bereft of anything approaching informed consent and as such an argument could be made that the Act contravenes the Nuremberg Code (1947); a legal case to this effect has been launched already in the US and another is gathering support in the UK. [cf. 1. above]
Further, the Act provides indemnity to health services, and grounds immunity for “vaccine” producers, from financial liability, placing the financial burden of any hitherto and future incidents of Covid-related harm (misdiagnosis or iatrogenesis), Covid-unrelated deaths or injury by neglect (denied or delayed treatment), and/or vaccine damage/adverse effect-related deaths, on to the British taxpayer. It is a matter of fact that in the UK alone the mass rollout of these new technologies erroneously dubbed “vaccines” have caused thousands of instances of injury and hundreds of deaths in the short space of time they have existed, and that there are hundreds if not thousands of independent scientists and academics around the world warning against their continued distribution.
Lastly, the roadmap out of Lockdown is already in place and very much underway; the case numbers and death numbers, which already represented a small and vanishingly small, respectively, percentage of the British population, have continued to fall since late January, after having continued to rise despite the imposition and adherence to the Act; therefore, now is the best possible moment to repeal the Act in its entirety, both as a gesture of confidence in and commitment to the roadmap out of this national embarrassment, and as a sober acknowledgement of the science, the facts, and the statistics as they appear at this time. The harms caused by and wrongly justified under this Act supposedly to counter the impact of an “unprecedented” novel coronavirus, a “threat” that has to date has affected less than 6.5% of the British population and of that 6.5% killed at most just 3% of those infected, or 0.19% of the entire British population – there have been less than 450 deaths in all of Buckinghamshire! There is therefore no grounding past or present for this base and baseless Act.
The only thing unprecedented about this situation is the woeful response by our government, beginning with the Coronavirus Act 2020. I could not in good conscience let go by the opportunity to entreat your better judgement, your conscience, and implore you in the strongest terms to repeal the Act, for the good of your constituents and your country.
Yours expectantly,
Luke MacKinnon