Parents Refuse C-19 Jab for Toddler, Are Fined R$ 20,000 in Brazil

In a telling, if little surprising, move, Lula's ostensibly 'left-wing™' Brazil is showing the world the shape of things to come

I found this piece ‘somewhere™’ on the web, and it tells the story of a Brazilian couple and their toddler who was supposed to get a Covid-19 poison jab at age one. As the parents refused, authorities in Lula’s ‘socialist™’ paradise (ahem) fined the outrageous sum of R$ 20,000, or Brazilian real, which is around US$ 3,500.

So, what’s the relationship to the cost-of-living in Brazil, you might ask. According to official data,

Per capita household income for Brazil was R$ 1,893, ranging between R$ 945 in Maranhão to R$ 3,357 in the Federal District’.

For comparison, in the federal state of Santa Catarina (where said couple resides), the per capita household income in 2023 stood at R$ 2,269. In other words, the parents’ refusal to have their toddler receive an experimental gene therapy (poison injection) costs them in excess of 8 times their annual income.

And at that point, I’ll paraphrase Mao—‘punish one, educate a hundred’—and let Luís Delai from 105fm take over.

Note that I don’t read (Brazilian) Portuguese, and while I understand a bit here and there (I know Italian), the below piece is machine-translated. Emphases mine, as are the bottom lines.

---

Court Ordered Parents to Pay R$20,000 Fine After Refusing to Vaccinate One-Year-Old Daughter Against [sic] Covid-19 in Santa Catarina

By Luís Delai, fm105, 31 Aug. 2024 [source]

The parents of a one-year-old baby who refused to vaccinate their daughter against Covid-19 have been ordered by the courts to pay a fine of R$20,000 in Jaguaruna. The decision was handed down last Wednesday (28 Aug.) following a civil case brought by the 1st District Prosecutor’s Office.

The ruling states that by not vaccinating the baby due to personal convictions, the parents committed an offence. The child should receive the first dose at six months, the second at seven months and the third at nine months.

The MPSC’s [provincial court’s] request for a fine is based on article 249 of the Statute of the Child and Adolescent [orig. ECA], which typifies as an administrative offence the act of failing to fulfil the duties inherent in family power, failing to guarantee children the right to health [this is Orwellian, if that word applies, for Art. 1 reads: ‘This Law treats of the full protection of the child and adolescent.’]

In the specific situation, in April, the parents refused to allow their baby to be vaccinated as recommended [a red flag, because a ‘recommendation’ isn’t legally binding, and, on top of it, it’s a doctor’s opinion] by professionals at a health centre in the city. At the time, the mother signed a term of responsibility confirming her refusal, aware that her daughter was in the priority group for immunisation and that she would be infringing the ECA [note that the functional equivalence of ‘don’t talk to police without a lawyer’ applies to doctor’s visits, too: don’t sign anything].

After that, in June, the parents received a notification from the Guardianship Council [Child Protective Services, another one of these Orwellian terms] stressing that vaccination was mandatory [bodily autonomy and the doctor’s opinion don’t matter; also, and yet another red flag, when did a ‘recommendation’ become ‘mandatory’?] and advising the family to go to the Health Department to regularise the situation and present the updated vaccination booklet to the Council within 15 days.

Once the deadline had passed, the parents failed to prove that they had taken the necessary steps. The Guardianship Council then called in the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which took the situation to court.

According to the judgement, the fine must be paid into the Jaguaruna Municipal Fund for Children and Adolescents.

---

Bottom Lines

Apologies for making you throw up once more after yesterday’s enquiry into Heiko Sepp’s travails.

In this instance, it’s even worse as we’re talking about a toddler who cannot decide, however ill-informedly, let alone judge for herself, the magnitude of implications.

How bad things have become it perhaps best illustrated by quoting a few choice titles of the Statute of the Child and Adolescent, passed by the Brazilian parliament in 1990 (emphases mine):

Art. 3. Without prejudice to the full protection treated of in this Law, the child and adolescent enjoy all the fundamental rights inherent to the human person and, by law or other means, are ensured of all opportunities and facilities so as to entitle them to physical, mental, moral, spiritual and social development, in conditions of freedom and dignity…

Art. 5. No child or adolescent will be subject to any form of negligence, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty and oppression, and any violation of their fundamental rights, either by act or omission, will be punished according to the terms of the Law…

Art. 7. The child and adolescent have the right to protection of life and health, [BUT ONLY] through effective implementation of public social policies that make possible birth and healthy and harmonious development in dignified conditions of existence.

A bit further down in this nefarious piece of ‘legislation™’, there is the following passage:

Art. 14. The Unified System of Health will promote programs of medical and dental assistance for prevention of the infirmities that normally affect the young population, together with campaigns of health education for parents, educators and students.

Paragraph. In the cases recommended by health authorities, vaccination of children is obligatory.

So, dignity, human rights, and these other ‘rights™’ are guaranteed, except for children being forced to undergo vaccination (sic) ‘in the cases recommended by health authorities’. Who is liable for any problems? Would that be the attending physician?

Who’s responsible politically? Well, the subsequent three titles of the Statute of the Child and Adolescent are, huhum, exceptionally telling:

Art. 15. The child and adolescent have the right to freedom, respect and dignity as human beings in the process of development and as the subjects of civil, human and social rights guarantied by the Constitution and in law [no right to bodily autonomy is mentioned].

Art. 16. The right to freedom encompasses the following aspects:

1. going, coming and remaining in public places and community spaces, except as determined by legal restrictions [does this clause apply to doctor’s recommendations?];

2. opinion and expression [except when a doctor recommends vaccination];

3. belief and religious practice;

4. play, sports practice and entertainment;

5. participation in family and community life, without discrimination;

6. participation in political life, according to the terms of the law;

7. seeking refuge, aid and guidance.

Art. 17. The right to respect consists of the inviolability of the physical, psychic and moral integrity of the child and adolescent, encompassing the preservation of the image, identity, autonomy, values, ideas and beliefs, personal spaces and objects [except when a state-employed doctor recommends vaccination].

Art. 18. It is the duty of all to watch over the dignity of the child and adolescent, preserving them from any inhuman, violent, terrorizing, vexing or coercive treatment.

I think we’ve seen enough. Lest you ask—is that Statute ‘the real thing?’ Well, it is (further proof, i.e., an identical official translation, can be found at the UNESCO’s website).

There’s so many things that can—nay: must—be said:

• ‘human rights™’ and ‘dignity™’ are fast morphing into coercive instruments wielded by ‘public health officialdom™’

• it’s obviously neither ‘inhuman, violent, terrorizing, vexing or coercive treatment’ if mandatory vaccination concerns a child

• kudos to the parents, and I hope they stand firm

I know Brazil is in the news for seemingly ‘more’ important things, but it’s perhaps us who should pause for a moment to consider the implications:

Laws and even things that once used to be perceived as ‘universal’, such as protection of children without questions asked, are rapidly going out of style.

It’s gut-wrenching to read the text of the law and compare it to what has happened in Brazil, esp. if you’re a parent.

And let’s not forget the fact that refusal by the parents to accept ‘vaccination’ will lead to not ‘just’ this excessive fine (as I said, it’s in excess of 8 times the annual income of a household) but also the loss of other government ‘services™’, such as child support payment, and I’m sure a ton of other things.

(Here’s a cheerful, ‘official™’ account of the Statute of the Child and Adolescent.)

This is extremely disgusting, as well as entirely predictable. And this form of biopolitical-medical™ tyranny is currently tested in places, such as Brazil.

If you think, ‘well, bad for them, but this must be both an individual issue’ and ‘of course, this can’t, and therefore won’t, happen here’, you’re very much mistaken.

You’ve all lived through the Covid madness, and in some places—like my home country of Austria—something like this was tried:

Covidistan Annals VII: a detailed look at the Vaxx Mandate, its implications, and the (dark) future it portends

In neighbouring Germany, in the depths of autumn/winter 2021/22, even very obviously problematic slogans were (ab)used once more to get this particular point across:

#never again is now, because, if the evidence from Lula’s ostensibly ‘socialist™’, in the WEF style, paradise is any guide, it won’t be long before this tyranny arrives at everybody’s else’s doorstep.