Our View: Lines are being drawn in the sand due to SafePass

The new measures decided by the government to try and curb the high number of positive cases, have left businesses holding the baby.

Some months ago when the SafePass was first touted, the data privacy commissioner insisted that businesses could not ask people for their medical information but it seems this has been walked back to facilitate the new diktat. Apparently, managers of establishments, or an appointed person, will now have the right to ask.

There have been some rumblings about legality as the SafePass was initially deemed to be a matter between the state and the citizen who was to prove to any passing Covid cop that they were vaccinated, had survived the virus or had a valid test.

Other than that, people could come and go as they pleased if they fulfilled those criteria and businesses were happy not to be the enforcers. Now, however the government has put them in this position because police do not have the resources.

Some businesses seem happy enough to comply. Others say they still don’t want the responsibility of enforcing a government decree. The lines in the sand were already being drawn even before the new decree came into effect yesterday.

Clearly some businesses will opt for ‘vaccinated only’ customers, the downside of which is cutting themselves off from around 40 per cent of the population. Most businesses though are likely to accept unvaccinated people with a valid SafePass.

There is a third faction emerging through a Facebook group that garnered around 5,000 members in a couple of days, which is listing businesses who say they will not ask for a SafePass – everyone is welcome.

While it’s a nice gesture to society’s outcasts, these businesses need to bear in mind that if they are inspected by police and a customer is found without a valid SafePass, they could be in for a world of hurt themselves. And, being so publicly defiant about their position will make them a target for police inspections.

The government has done a terrific job of pitting people against each other, turning a medical matter into a moral issue and dividing society into two tiers. While in an ideal world, 100 per cent of people would have opted for the jab, it’s not an ideal world and people who feel directly or indirectly bullied, irrespective of the reason, will just dig their heels in more.

Those who can afford it, will likely rather pay the cost of retaining their right to choose if and when they want a vaccine. It could be argued that it’s an emergency, but this does not negate the legality of saying no. It only moves the debate to the moral sphere.

If the right to opt out of a medical procedure did not exist, the government – which has not been at all transparent – would not be twisting itself in knots trying to get around it.

While telling people they ‘respect’ their right to choose, their actions reveal the opposite.