Balance: Can The Law Go Too Far?

Not too long ago there was yet another shooting in the US at an elementary school; that particular horrendous event gave rise to the debate about gun control. I was vocal about my dislike for the low regulations for gun control (not everywhere of course, there are countries with far better regulations than others), this gave rise for some people to assume that I support the banning of any type of guns from people–that assumption couldn’t be far from the truth within my heart.

Having grown up witnessing the massacres left behind by terrorists and the pain survivors have to live with, of course I understand the grief families who lost loved ones during the shootings are going through. Personally however, I do not believe guns are the problem–mental health, bullying, trauma, abuse–those are the root of the problem. To say all would be solved if no one had guns, to me is a naïve idea based on a Utopia. Throughout millennia, human nature has proven time and time again, that if your essence is good you will seek justice not massacres. If your essence is good, you will respect the life of others. If your essence is sick, ill or outright twisted, it matters not if bans are set in place, they will find a way to obtain them–just look at the cartels….do we really think, they will just hand their weapons and roll over?

When looking back at the horrendous events I witnessed, I don’t believe for a second, those murderers would have not hurt those people simply because guns were banned. What I do believe when looking back, is that I know many families wished they had owned one; at least that way they would have had a fighting chance. A tool is never the problem, it is the person behind it–for no one can stop an ill mind from doing what it is determined to do.

Now moving on to another example of extremes, this time not by an ill mind but by a legal entity. This is based on a debate I was listening to, which focused on the annual meeting of the World Health Organization.

At the annual meeting of the World Health Organization, a reform was presented which I consider harmful or dangerous to international health regulations. This reform proposes several amendments that seek; among other things; to grant this organization powers– from surveillance to control over the member countries– which means almost the entire planet.

In simple terms, we are talking about a reform in which this organization would be above the sovereignty of governments–to me this is serious, for we are talking about a plan to turn this organization into a totalitarian organism in which a small group not elected by the people, and not subject to the laws of any country, may make decisions above any government in the name of a supposed health security.

Let us not forget that not too long ago the whole world had to deal with a pandemic; some countries handled it better than others….I will not get into that particular debate, but if nothing else we should look at the behavioral data; this has shown that based on full media hysteria, people were willing to dehumanize, mistreat and insult their neighbors if those thought differently. We can debate the seriousness of the situation, but just like the nonsensical shootings based on fear, hatred, anger, unresolved trauma and mental illness–when it came to the pandemic, people were willing to abuse others and violate their rights–yet I ask, why not so much frenzy and hysteria since the media decided to stop making the pandemic the main topic of their news?…food for thought.

I am not here to support conspiracies, this is my opinion which supports a debate I listened to about this new proposal–you are free to agree or disagree– however, to deny that too many easily and blindly believe on whatever is promoted by mass media as the hot topic of the day, would be to deny the events of the last couple of years.

This proposal (which by the way, didn’t go through thanks to African nations, which now are sanctioned–for other reasons) would give a group control over our lives and freedoms. Equity International Initiative, rightly denounced the proposed amendment as a clandestine script to position the world health organization as a world government.

To compare this with the novel 1984 by Orwell, is not a joke nor does it go too far. Unlike far gone conspirators, I do not believe in some type of fictional reason as to how Orwell could have been able to describe many events taking place today. To me is simple…history repeats itself until people are willing to learn. I don’t believe he had some type of psychic powers or time machine, rather just like economic analysts do all the time, he simply based himself on historical data. More plausible however, is the fact that his novel was written for his times, based on his experiences of the world at the time–I am talking about extreme communism, where the rights of people were being violated in the name of a mother nation. It seems however, the tables have turned, and the very thing the West used to oppose, is strategically and patiently being tested and implemented within our society.

The strengthening of a control surveillance system for the treatment of a future health emergency may be desirable for many, but be careful what you wish for or support without thinking about all the ramifications. Whenever anyone asks you to give up your rights in exchange for security, know they intend to rule with iron hand.

I have always said: offer the world a tragedy and see how quickly they are willing to give up their rights in exchange for a feeling of security. It is human nature; the basic instinct. However, when people choose to rise above instinct and look at something without a narrow focus, but from all angles– then one gets to make an informative decision, and chances of making the “right” decision become higher–this in turn might give society as a whole the opportunity it needs to maintain their freedoms and to demand a democratic society, not an unilateral authoritarian one.

At the end it comes down to the people, and whether or not they are willing to accept the cold fact that they do hold power, but with power comes responsibility– the responsibility to stand against anything the violates the human rights of self and that of our neighbors; this might mean being the one less popular, but let us remember that no great endeavor has ever been accomplished by hiding behind false diplomacy, being the most likeable or always seeking to be politically correct. There is a reason why lady Justice holds a sword, for it is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.