Integrity Legal - Law Firm in Bangkok | Bangkok Lawyer | Legal Services Thailand Back to
Integrity Legal

Legal Services & Resources 

Up to date legal information pertaining to Thai, American, & International Law.

Contact us: +66 2-266 3698

ResourcesWhen Did Needless Restrictions Become "Natural"?

When Did Needless Restrictions Become "Natural"?

Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing the concept of “when did quite frankly I think it is getting to the point where you can only call them needless restrictions become equated with "natural"? The reason for this video, I was reading recent article in ASEAN NOW, that is, the article is titled: Are we just going to have to live with unvaccinated people across Thailand? 

First of all let me just answer the headline question. Yeah, you are! I mean that's the way the world works. People make their own decisions about their own personal health choices especially in a situation where whatever protocol you are dictating does not have any evidence of mitigating transmission. So yeah, the answer to that is YES. Quoting further: "With the world trying to cope with this unique pandemic, should we risk letting people like Novac Djokovic, (sorry, I am mispronouncing that probably) continue to stick to his principles of not being vaccinated, while still wishing to roam free?" I really am just shocked by the language of some of this stuff where it is, "well should we just allow this guy to be free and make choices on his own?  What are we going to do with this?" And again, there is serious evidence out there now, and I don't want to get too deep into this part because it is not the bailiwick of what we like talking about on here. I like doing things on legality and what is going on in Thailand, and just basic notions of travel which again "was wishing to roam free" was why I started thinking of this. Again it is my understanding that the solution if you will, yes it mitigates people's symptoms; how they react to the disease, but it is my understanding, and I have tried to read as much as I can on this, transmission it doesn't really have any impact on that or at least no appreciable impact that we are able to see especially under current circumstances with this latest Greek letter that is just cutting through everybody, to the point where Health Officials here in Thailand are getting ready to call this thing endemic and just move on with our lives. 

So one, I disagree with the entire premise of the question which is "oh should we let people make their own health decisions and just roam around?" I mean yeah, we should, that is obvious. Secondly, I disagree with the entire chain of logic because it presupposes something that is not the case. Whatever this person decides to do doesn't actually impact anybody else, so what are we talking about? Quoting further: "Naturally, society may be able to accept their position. However it will be a lot more expensive for some time for unvaccinated people to move around, check into hotels, or board a plane." Why? because you say so? Why is that? I don't understand why that is the case. Again where it doesn't have any impact on others, why would anything change? Even if it did let me be clear I would still have issues with this. People talk to me and they think I am like antivaxx, or pro this or that or whatever. I am not. What I am anti is "mandates", where the state unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously just mandates things. I would have an issue with this if it was everybody was required to wear a tuxedo to dinner on Fridays. I would have an issue with this if it was required that everybody wear Crocs on Tuesdays. Just any mandate, I am going to have an issue with. Now yeah there are mandates in our society; you can't kill people with impunity and we have all agreed on those. Those are sort of the social compact, this ain't part of that. We have never had these kind of restrictions in the past and there has to be substantial viable reason in my opinion, to impose something as quite frankly Draconian as some of this has been and has that justification been present? I think there is a strong argument that it hasn't to date but the notion that it needs to continue while the underlying threat is abating, that to me is just pretty nonsensical. Quoting further: "It will be up to Immigration at airports, hotels or airlines policies if they can stay or fly." So there is a group of people that will forever be at the whim of bureaucracy, large corporations and travel businesses? Really? That's the world we want to live in? Quoting further: "It is a difficult dilemma." No, it isn't. No, it is not a difficult dilemma. Quoting further: "What do you think is the correct route to take?" I think the correct route to take is to let's get on back to what we were doing quarter one of 2020. Thailand was doing just fine back then. I think if we could do it all over again knowing what we know now we would have made seriously different decisions, substantially different decisions. We are looking at a situation where our economy here in Thailand, a country I love by the way; people think I am somehow critical of Thailand. I am not. I am a real supporter of Thailand. I am Thai, I love this place. It is why I get so upset and passionate about this. I didn't like talking about this stuff and really didn't do it until about April of '21 when the front page of the Bangkok Post said Thais needed to be treated like children. That is where I lost it with all of this kind of for lack of a better turn, sort of smug, condescending, imposed precepts on people. Like well "I mean "can we just let this person roam free?" Yeah, we can. We are going to be all right. And "oh, it is going to be more expensive for a certain subset of people to move around; check into hotels or board a plane." Why? Because you say so? Because again I don't agree with the fundamental premise but I will set that aside for a minute. Take it from another angle. If you could prove that transmissibility was mitigated at the very least if not stopped by this, then okay at least you have a logical argument underlying why you would mandate something on people and impose restrictions on their own personal bodily Integrity as well as their own personal medical choices. At least you would have an argument, but where that doesn't exist coupled with the fact that people notwithstanding really yeah, at the end of the day there is a give or take to the social compact. Yes the greater good needs to be considered but the individual good needs to be considered as well.

One of my favourite movies is Schindler's List, the part at the end where they give him the ring and they say: "Anyone who saves one person, saves the World entire". I always think of that because it is a really profound concept and what it does is it encapsulates both notions of the importance of the individual and the importance of the group simultaneously. Now we have worried for a long time about the group and I think we have probably overly worried about that but okay we have gotten through it and now we see the threat to the "group" is abating. It is time to worry about that "one life" as well as the "world entire".