VACCINE PASSPORTS PERMIT NORMALCY

Mid May, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released an updated health guidance acknowledging that fully vaccinated people no longer needed to wear a mask or stay away from others in most settings, whether outdoors or indoors. During a press conference, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walinsky proclaimed: "If you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing the things you stopped doing because of the pandemic. We have all longed for this moment, when we can get back to some sense of normalcy." While, on the face of it, this is great news for all of us who are duly vaccinated, for many venues potentially benefiting from the CDC's updated guidance, it begs the question: "Short of trusting the so-called honor system, how can we tell if someone is actually vaccinated?" Municipalities across the country inevitably reacted by re-opening a discussion about creating systems that would help verify someone's vaccination status. Some, like Santa Clara County, put the onus on employers, requiring them to find out which of their workers have gotten their shots, and to treat those who refuse to reveal that information to be treated as if they have not. At the other extreme, states like Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Texas, South Carolina and Arkansas actually passed legislation prohibiting local governments from requiring proof of vaccination. Nevertheless, businesses, regardless of size, struggle to separate the fully inoculated from those who are not, either by choice or circumstance. Establishments concerned about the safety of their employees and patrons are not allowing people into their facilities unless they are able to prove they have had their shots. Many are beginning to insist that we establish some form of vaccine passport, either in the form of a signed and stamped document or a QR code stored on our phones. This form of documentation has become especially important for travel and for entrance into large venues like sports arenas or concert halls. Internationally, Israel, which is virtually fully vaccinated, introduced a "green pass," enabling people to use facilities like gyms and hotels, while Bahrain, China and Greece also already require similar documentation. The UK and the EU are close to establishing a "digital green certificate" to facilitate opening up their economies. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently lamented that Covid passports would likely become a "fact of life" in overseas travel. Given the devastating financial losses incurred by the travel industry, and the realization that many markets, especially in Europe, rely on tourism for much of their economy, airlines and travel organizations are increasing their push for adoption of some form of universally accepted proof of vaccination for the traveling public. In the mean time, domestically, venues like Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles and a growing number of sporting facilities elsewhere are setting aside special seating areas for those who are inoculated, to allow them to enjoy games side by side with other fans the way they used to pre-pandemic. For those supporting this form of documentation, vaccine passports are the way back to normality. Those opposed argue that requiring these leads to unnecessary government interference. When introduced for travel, it could be too easily extended and abused. They consider its requirement punishment for not getting vaccinated, and fear that it would create a two-tier society where only some people can participate in normal activities or access employment opportunities., which could have major ethical implications. Whatever the opposition throws at the discussion about the desirability of a standard proof of vaccination, private industry seems to forge ahead in support of the idea. Some cruise lines have already stipulated that no one can board their ships without proof of vaccination. Norwegian Cruise Lines is even threatening to keep its ships out of Florida ports if the state stands by a law prohibiting businesses requiring vaccines in exchange for services. Airlines are eager to introduce vaccine passports, which, in their view, are the "golden tickets" for reopening borders and allowing for international travel that will help local economies and the global hospitality begin to recover from the adverse effects of the pandemic. Or, as a bar owner in Washington was reported to have said: "As we hit a plateau with vaccines, we can't sit and wait for all of the non believers. If we are going to convince them, it's going to be through them not being able to do the things that vaccinated people are able to do." Theo Wierdsma

GUN VIOLENCE CONTINUES UNABATED

Shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre in December of 2012, I published an article demanding that assault weapons be regulated. Adam Lanza, the 20 year old assassin at Sandy Hook, killed 26 people, including 20 children ranging in age between 6 and 7 years old. By March of 2018, about 7,000 more children had died by gunfire, more than the total number of combat casualties suffered by our military since September 11, 2001. At the time I reported that our citizenry owned 270 million, or 30%, of all privately owned firearms in the world. Since then, these totals have steadily climbed to 428 million or 46%. We now own 120 firearms for every 100 citizens. Many fair-minded Americans have expressed their concern about gun violence and support for rational gun control measures. In a recent poll, in excess of 83% of those interviewed support background checks for private and gun show sales, 72% favor requiring licensing before gun purchases are consummated and 57% would ban assault weapons altogether. Nevertheless, our politicians don't seem to notice. Little or no progress has been made. During the first four months of 2021, gun activity in the U.S. has already resulted in 6,300 deaths and 175 mass shootings. Vociferous opposition by opponents of any restrictions on gun ownership proclaim that any mandate would do little to reduce these morbid statistics. In which case I submit that assault weapons are military and have no business being included in civilian arsenals. Two weeks after 35 people were killed during a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, then Australian prime minister John Howard ushered in a semi-automatic weapons ban. That same year, 1996, a massacre in a Scottish school in Dunblane killed 16 children and one teacher. The following year private ownership of most handguns was banned in Great Britain. And, in response to the March 15, 2019 mosque massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand, which killed 51 at the hand of a white supremacist, prime minister Jacinda Ardern introduced an Arms Amendment Act which made assault weapons illegal, and initiated a national buy-back program. The Amendment became law on April 10 of that same year. In this country, the day after "Sandy Hook," and, subsequently, following most massacres, the demand for assault weapons exploded, causing one weapons dealer to observe that he sold more AR-15 and AK-47 rifles in one week than he would normally sell in one year. What sets us apart from all other developed countries is accessibility, our Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association, and, perhaps, a residual frontier mentality. What dominates the discussion, however, is the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." During the Revolutionary War era, "militias" referred to groups of men banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and, eventually, states. James Madison proposed the Second Amendment to empower state militias, expressing a concern of a too powerful central government, and establishing the principle that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens. The Amendment was modeled after a condition found in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which, in turn, was a reaction to King James II, a Catholic, who had attempted to disarm his Protestant opposition. There are only three countries that protect the right to bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala and the United States. Mexico currently forbids ownership of military weapons, prohibits the carrying of weapons in some inhabited places, and only has one gun shop in the entire country, located in a heavily guarded army base in Mexico City. Guatemala allows its citizens to purchase guns. However, a purchase requires government approval, and gun owners need to re-apply and re-qualify for firearm licenses every couple of years. The real meaning of the wording of our Second Amendment is not at all self-evident, and has given rise to much commentary. For most of our legal history, the consensus has been that the right to bear arms was not an individual right, but rather a right for those called to military service, the militia. In 1991, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, stated that the idea that there was an individual right to bear arms was "a fraud," and if it had been up to him there would never have been a Second Amendment. Over time, however, under pressure of gun-rights advocates, spearheaded by the NRA, this perspective gradually changed. In 2008, in "District of Columbia v. Heller," in a 5-4 decision, the Court held that there is a constitutional right to have a hand gun in one's home for self-protection. But the Court did not say that this right was absolute, and intimated that governmental restrictions might be appropriate. Nonetheless, even that position seems to be changing as some justices appear to have developed evolving views on the subject. Just last month the current Court agreed to review New York State's restrictions limiting the carrying of concealed weapons - a law enacted in 2012 in response to the Sandy Hook massacre. In the mean time our statistics continue to go through the roof. The U.K registers roughly 150 gun related deaths per year. We average 109 deaths every day. Every year we record 14 times more gun related deaths than the European Union, which has 180 million more citizens. In 2012 we averaged about 32-thousand gun deaths every year. Last year this number reached 44-thousand. It is time for our politicians to stop dusting off their stock responses to every recurring mass shooting, get out from under the thumb of the NRA, and come up with sensible gun control legislation, or, otherwise, we may as well make "Amazing Grace" our new national anthem. Theo Wierdsma

SANCTIONING HATE SPEECH

One of the highlights of the recently televised Academy Awards Ceremony was the powerful speech delivered by multi-talented Tyler Perry as he accepted the "Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award." His message centered on "refusing hate," and refusing to succumb to "blanket judgments," something his mother had taught him as a boy growing up. His moving story about a homeless woman who had approached him for help more than a decade ago, who told him she thought he would hate her for asking for help, resonated emotionally with many in the audience. Tyler Perry's poignant message couldn't help but make us reflect on the current state of affairs in many parts of the world where "hate speech" seems to dominate much of every day's communication. Our own country is no exception. Most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech recognized in the First Amendment to our Constitution. There is no legal definition of "hate speech" under U.S. law. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to recognize a fine line between free speech and hate speech. Free speech encourages debate, whereas hate speech incites violence. Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability - constitutionally protected characteristics under anti-discrimination laws. Because of the latter, some would argue that First Amendment protection should not apply to hate speech. However, our Supreme Court, in "Matal v. Tam" in 2017, reaffirmed that there is no exception for hate speech in the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment, and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of a speaker's viewpoint. Government can't bar hate speech unless it is direct, personal, and either truly threatening or violently provocative. Hate crimes, however, don't violate the First Amendment because they are based on actions rather than expressions of opinion. This exception also includes intimidating symbolic actions, like cross burning, that are intended to make victims fear for their lives. Legal challenges covering freedom of speech have been plentiful. Over time, the Supreme Court has issued dozens of opinions, while the ACLU, since 1940, has filed more than 150 cases. With technology constantly in transition, the response to these challenges have become more and more nuanced. Richard Stengel, a former editor for Time magazine, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, on Oct.29, 2019, writes: "The First Amendment protects the "thoughts that we hate," but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw." Zachary Laub, publications editor for the Brennan Center of the Council of Foreign Relations, published results of research intended to establish correlations between hate speech posted on-line and the increase in violence toward minorities, including mass shootings, lynchings and ethnic cleansing. He hypothesized the connection between anti-refugee Facebook posts by the far-right "Alternative for Germany" party and attacks on refugees in that country, white supremacy on-line communications and the killing of 9 black clergy and worshipers in Charleston by Dylann Roof, the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue killing of 11 by Robert Bowers, and the 2019 mosque shooting in New Zealand that killed 49. It seems credible to propose that social media have a tendency to catalyze hate crimes, and that previously rendered legal opinions about hate speech and freedom of speech may need to be revisited. As the digital age continues to evolve, the application of freedom of speech to hate speech becomes more controversial. Attempts at developing a national hate speech law face opposition because questions arise about who will decide what constitutes hate speech. Decisions by social media companies to restrict certain content face charges of censorship. Nevertheless, we might argue that unregulated hate speech normalizes prejudice and encourages discrimination. Ultimately, we need to consider that the rise of extremism may be inevitable if hate speech continues to be legally protected. Theo Wierdsma