Posted on 12/21/2021 1:32:09 PM PST by lightman
The office of New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said on Dec. 20 that the state wouldn’t send inspectors to businesses to see if business owners are complying with the Democrat’s indoor mask mandate, an apparent reversal of remarks Hochul made earlier in the day.
“Enforcement will be done by local health departments,” Hochul spokesperson Hazel Crampton-Hays told news outlets. “Governor Hochul made $65 million available today for counties’ enforcement needs, including personnel costs associated with spot checks and other enforcement. We are all in this together as we fight this winter surge.”
In two press briefings on the funding, Hochul had indicated that the state would help counties identify businesses out of compliance with the new mandate.
In one, she said the money would help counties, “whether it’s just getting out there and bringing masks to the businesses and putting up signs and having a call center so people can call in complaints, or sending a notice and a phone call, just to have the resources to do the right thing.”
“But the state will be involved as well,” Hochul said. “We’ll be sending around inspectors to do spot checks to see what’s going on.”
During the other briefing, Hochul said the state’s assistance would include “having some spot checks.”
The remarks contrasted with the governor’s comments delivered last week. She said it would be up to each county to enforce the mandate, which applies to all businesses that don’t impose a vaccination requirement.
A number of county officials have said they won’t enforce the mandate.
“My health department has critical things to do that are more important than enforcing this, and I think small businesses have been through enough already,” Orange County Executive Steve Neuhaus, a Republican, said recently. “God forbid the governor directs the state police to go out and enforce it.”
The $65 million from the state will be used for expenses incurred by counties and local health departments from when the mandate was announced on Dec. 10 through its expiration on Jan. 15, 2022.
Eligible expenses include staffing and other costs for any sites offering vaccines, boosters, or tests, and personnel costs associated with enforcing the mask mandate.
“Getting vaccinated and wearing a mask are the surest ways to fight COVID and stay safe, and this funding will help counties across the state enforce the reasonable, responsible and effective mask-or-vax mandate in place until mid-January,” Hochul said in a statement.
COVID-19 is the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
Too fascistic even for the woman who was made governor because she is more fascist than cuooomo.
Liar. Trust them? Pfft! Enemies of the people.
Must be those pesky sheriffs again.
If getting vaxxed and wearing masks work so well, why is covid spreading to the vaxxed and masked?
A proposed bill in NY would give the governor power to detain individuals “indefinitely” who are deemed a threat due to a “case or suspected case of contagious disease”
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a416
re your views on important issues.
FIND YOUR SENATOR
Assembly Bill A416
2021-2022 Legislative Session
Relates to the removal of cases, contacts and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public health
CURRENT BILL STATUS - IN ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
Introduced In Committee On Floor Calendar Passed SenatePassed Assembly Delivered To Governor Signed/Vetoed By Governor
Relates to the removal of cases, contacts and carriers of communicable diseases that are potentially dangerous to the public health.
A416 (ACTIVE) - BILL TEXT
DOWNLOAD PDF
S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________
416
2021-2022 Regular Sessions
I N A S S E M B L Y
(PREFILED)
January 6, 2021
___________
Introduced by M. of A. PERRY — read once and referred to the Committee
on Health
AN ACT to amend the public health law, in relation to the removal of
cases, contacts and carriers of communicable diseases who are poten-
tially dangerous to the public health
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The public health law is amended by adding a new section
2120-a to read as follows:
§ 2120-A. REMOVAL AND DETENTION OF CASES, CONTACTS AND CARRIERS WHO
ARE OR MAY BE A DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH; OTHER ORDERS. 1. THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE UTILIZED IN THE EVENT THAT THE GOVERNOR
DECLARES A STATE OF HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO AN EPIDEMIC OF ANY COMMUNI-
CABLE DISEASE.
2. UPON DETERMINING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE HEALTH
OF OTHERS IS OR MAY BE ENDANGERED BY A CASE, CONTACT OR CARRIER, OR
SUSPECTED CASE, CONTACT OR CARRIER OF A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE THAT, IN THE
OPINION OF THE GOVERNOR, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER, MAY
POSE AN IMMINENT AND SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESULTING
IN SEVERE MORBIDITY OR HIGH MORTALITY, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELE-
GEE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE COMMISSIONER OR THE HEADS OF
LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, MAY ORDER THE REMOVAL AND/OR DETENTION OF SUCH
A PERSON OR OF A GROUP OF SUCH PERSONS BY ISSUING A SINGLE ORDER, IDEN-
TIFYING SUCH PERSONS EITHER BY NAME OR BY A REASONABLY SPECIFIC
DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUP BEING DETAINED. SUCH PERSON OR
GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPRO-
PRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER
DELEGEE AND COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION.
3. A PERSON OR GROUP REMOVED OR DETAINED BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR OR
HIS OR HER DELEGEE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
EXPLANATION—Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD04443-01-1
A. 416 2
DETAINED FOR SUCH PERIOD AND IN SUCH MANNER AS THE DEPARTMENT MAY DIRECT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION.
4. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY INCONSISTENT PROVISION OF THIS SECTION:
(A) A CONFIRMED CASE OR A CARRIER WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVI-
SION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED AFTER THE
DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT SUCH PERSON IS NO LONGER CONTAGIOUS.
(B) A SUSPECTED CASE OR SUSPECTED CARRIER WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO
SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED AFTER
THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES, WITH THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE, THAT SUCH
PERSON IS NOT INFECTED WITH OR HAS NOT BEEN EXPOSED TO SUCH A DISEASE,
OR IF INFECTED WITH OR EXPOSED TO SUCH A DISEASE, NO LONGER IS OR WILL
BECOME CONTAGIOUS.
(C) A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS
SECTION AS A CONTACT OF A CONFIRMED CASE OR A CARRIER SHALL NOT CONTINUE
TO BE DETAINED AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS NOT
INFECTED WITH THE DISEASE OR THAT SUCH CONTACT NO LONGER PRESENTS A
POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE HEALTH OF OTHERS.
(D) A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS
SECTION AS A CONTACT OF A SUSPECTED CASE SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE
DETAINED:
(I) AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES, WITH THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILI-
GENCE, THAT THE SUSPECTED CASE WAS NOT INFECTED WITH SUCH A DISEASE, OR
WAS NOT CONTAGIOUS AT THE TIME THE CONTACT WAS EXPOSED TO SUCH INDIVID-
UAL; OR
(II) AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE CONTACT NO LONGER
PRESENTS A POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE HEALTH OF OTHERS.
5. A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS
SECTION SHALL, AS IS APPROPRIATE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES:
(A) HAVE HIS OR HER MEDICAL CONDITION AND NEEDS ASSESSED AND ADDRESSED
ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND
(B) BE DETAINED IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH RECOGNIZED
ISOLATION AND INFECTION CONTROL PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE
LIKELIHOOD OF TRANSMISSION OF INFECTION TO SUCH PERSON AND TO OTHERS.
6. WHEN A PERSON OR GROUP IS ORDERED TO BE DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDI-
VISION TWO OF THIS SECTION FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING THREE BUSINESS
DAYS, SUCH PERSON OR MEMBER OF SUCH GROUP SHALL, UPON REQUEST, BE
AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. IF A PERSON OR GROUP DETAINED
PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION NEEDS TO BE DETAINED BEYOND
THREE BUSINESS DAYS, THEY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN ADDITIONAL COMMIS-
SIONER’S ORDER PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISIONS TWO AND EIGHT OF THIS SECTION.
7. WHEN A PERSON OR GROUP IS ORDERED TO BE DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDI-
VISION TWO OF THIS SECTION FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING THREE BUSINESS DAYS,
AND SUCH PERSON OR MEMBER OF SUCH GROUP REQUESTS RELEASE, THE GOVERNOR
OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE SHALL MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR A COURT ORDER
AUTHORIZING SUCH DETENTION WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SUCH REQUEST
BY THE END OF THE FIRST BUSINESS DAY FOLLOWING SUCH SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR
LEGAL HOLIDAY, WHICH APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A REQUEST FOR AN EXPE-
DITED HEARING. AFTER ANY SUCH REQUEST FOR RELEASE, DETENTION SHALL NOT
CONTINUE FOR MORE THAN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS IN THE ABSENCE OF A COURT
ORDER AUTHORIZING DETENTION. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS,
IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY PERSON BE DETAINED FOR MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS WITH-
OUT A COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING SUCH DETENTION. THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER
DELEGEE SHALL SEEK FURTHER COURT REVIEW OF SUCH DETENTION WITHIN NINETY
DAYS FOLLOWING THE INITIAL COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING DETENTION AND THERE-
AFTER WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF EACH SUBSEQUENT COURT REVIEW. IN ANY COURT
PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE FOR
A. 416 3
THE REMOVAL OR DETENTION OF A PERSON OR GROUP ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS
SUBDIVISION OR FOR REVIEW OF THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF A PERSON OR
GROUP, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE SHALL PROVE THE PARTICULARIZED
CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTING THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH DETENTION BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
8. (A) A COPY OF ANY DETENTION ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER
DELEGEE ISSUED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
GIVEN TO EACH DETAINED INDIVIDUAL; HOWEVER, IF THE ORDER APPLIES TO A
GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS AND IT IS IMPRACTICAL TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL COPIES,
IT MAY BE POSTED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE IN THE DETENTION PREMISES. ANY
DETENTION ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER ISSUED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO
OF THIS SECTION SHALL SET FORTH:
(I) THE PURPOSE OF THE DETENTION AND THE LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH
THE ORDER IS ISSUED, INCLUDING THE PARTICULAR SECTIONS OF THIS ARTICLE
OR OTHER LAW OR REGULATION;
(II) A DESCRIPTION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND/OR BEHAVIOR OF THE
DETAINED PERSON OR GROUP CONSTITUTING THE BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE
ORDER;
(III) THE LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE ATTEMPTED AND WERE
UNSUCCESSFUL AND/OR THE LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE CONSID-
ERED AND REJECTED, AND THE REASONS SUCH ALTERNATIVES WERE REJECTED;
(IV) A NOTICE ADVISING THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THEY
HAVE A RIGHT TO REQUEST RELEASE FROM DETENTION, AND INCLUDING
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW SUCH REQUEST SHALL BE MADE;
(V) A NOTICE ADVISING THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THEY
HAVE A RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL AND THAT UPON REQUEST OF
SUCH PERSON OR GROUP ACCESS TO COUNSEL WILL BE FACILITATED TO THE EXTENT
FEASIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; AND
(VI) A NOTICE ADVISING THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THEY
MAY SUPPLY THE ADDRESSES AND/OR TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF FRIENDS AND/OR
RELATIVES TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF THE PERSON’S DETENTION, AND THAT
THE DEPARTMENT SHALL, AT THE DETAINED PERSON’S REQUEST AND TO THE EXTENT
FEASIBLE, PROVIDE NOTICE TO A REASONABLE NUMBER OF SUCH PEOPLE THAT THE
PERSON IS BEING DETAINED.
(B) IN ADDITION, AN ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISIONS TWO AND
SEVEN OF THIS SECTION, REQUIRING THE DETENTION OF A PERSON OR GROUP FOR
A PERIOD EXCEEDING THREE BUSINESS DAYS, SHALL:
(I) ADVISE THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THE DETENTION SHALL
NOT CONTINUE FOR MORE THAN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER A REQUEST FOR
RELEASE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF A COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING SUCH
DETENTION;
(II) ADVISE THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT, WHETHER OR NOT
THEY REQUEST RELEASE FROM DETENTION, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE
MUST OBTAIN A COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING DETENTION WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
FOLLOWING THE COMMENCEMENT OF DETENTION AND THEREAFTER MUST FURTHER SEEK
COURT REVIEW OF THE DETENTION WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF SUCH COURT ORDER AND
WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF EACH SUBSEQUENT COURT REVIEW; AND
(III) ADVISE THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THEY HAVE THE
RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT LEGAL COUNSEL BE PROVIDED, THAT UPON SUCH REQUEST
COUNSEL SHALL BE PROVIDED IF AND TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THAT IF COUNSEL IS SO PROVIDED, THAT SUCH COUNSEL
WILL BE NOTIFIED THAT THE PERSON OR GROUP HAS REQUESTED LEGAL REPRESEN-
TATION.
9. A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY, OR OTHER APPROPRI-
ATE FACILITY OR PREMISES, SHALL NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A
A. 416 4
DISORDERLY MANNER, AND SHALL NOT LEAVE OR ATTEMPT TO LEAVE SUCH FACILITY
OR PREMISES UNTIL HE OR SHE IS DISCHARGED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
10. WHERE NECESSARY AND FEASIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, LANGUAGE
INTERPRETERS AND PERSONS SKILLED IN COMMUNICATING WITH VISION AND HEAR-
ING IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
11. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE ISSUANCE OF
ORDERS PURSUANT TO § 11.21 OF THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH CODE.
12. IN ADDITION TO THE REMOVAL OR DETENTION ORDERS REFERRED TO IN
SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION, AND WITHOUT AFFECTING OR LIMITING ANY
OTHER AUTHORITY THAT THE COMMISSIONER MAY OTHERWISE HAVE, THE GOVERNOR
OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE MAY, IN HIS OR HER DISCRETION, ISSUE AND SEEK
ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER ORDERS THAT HE OR SHE DETERMINES ARE NECESSARY
OR APPROPRIATE TO PREVENT DISSEMINATION OR TRANSMISSION OF CONTAGIOUS
DISEASES OR OTHER ILLNESSES THAT MAY POSE A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ORDERS REQUIRING ANY PERSON OR PERSONS
WHO ARE NOT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO BE EXCLUDED; TO REMAIN
ISOLATED OR QUARANTINED AT HOME OR AT A PREMISES OF SUCH PERSON’S CHOICE
THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AND FOR
SUCH PERIOD AS WILL PREVENT TRANSMISSION OF THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASE OR
OTHER ILLNESS; TO REQUIRE THE TESTING OR MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
WHO MAY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO OR INFECTED BY A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE OR WHO
MAY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO OR CONTAMINATED WITH DANGEROUS AMOUNTS OF
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS OR TOXIC CHEMICALS; TO REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO OR INFECTED BY A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE TO COMPLETE AN
APPROPRIATE, PRESCRIBED COURSE OF TREATMENT, PREVENTIVE MEDICATION OR
VACCINATION, INCLUDING DIRECTLY OBSERVED THERAPY TO TREAT THE DISEASE
AND FOLLOW INFECTION CONTROL PROVISIONS FOR THE DISEASE; OR TO REQUIRE
AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED WITH DANGEROUS AMOUNTS OF RADIO-
ACTIVE MATERIALS OR TOXIC CHEMICALS SUCH THAT SAID INDIVIDUAL MAY PRES-
ENT A DANGER TO OTHERS, TO UNDERGO DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES DEEMED
NECESSARY BY THE DEPARTMENT. SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS SHALL, UPON
REQUEST, BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, BUT THE PROVISIONS OF
SUBDIVISIONS TWO THROUGH ELEVEN OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT OTHERWISE
APPLY.
13. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT OR
REQUIRE THE FORCIBLE ADMINISTRATION OF ANY MEDICATION WITHOUT A PRIOR
COURT ORDER.
§ 2. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall
have become a law. Effective immediately the addition, amendment and/or
repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of
this act on its effective date are authorized to be made and completed
on or before such date.
So Antifa and BLM protesting during a pandemic. Cool.
RE: “Enforcement will be done by local health departments,”
More than half of New York State’s counties already said they are not going to enforce Hochul’s mask mandate. Heck even in the two populous counties of Long Island ( one with a Republican, the other with a Democrat executive) already said they’re not going to enforce the mandate.
How’s this mandate going to work without state inspectors?
I heard this proposal mentioned on a recent "No Agenda" podcast. That is one insane piece of proposed legislation. It's unbelievable someone would even think to draft such a law. It's disgusting in its trashing of basic human rights.
I looked into this and it looks like this guy Perry has been introducing this bill since 2015. It never gets out of committee.
But if it ever starts going anywhere, that would be a problem.
Another problem is who the heck keeps voting a commie in that supports concentration camps with actual proposed legislation?
Thanks for the feedback.
“I looked into this and it looks like this guy Perry has been introducing this bill since 2015. It never gets out of committee.”
I got that link and feedback from a semi relative, who lives in a state next to NY and drives into the City about once a month to work and “enjoy the the culture”.
NYC may end up as a no go for this person.
I’m in total agreement with you!
they ain’t got the yarballs... (+)
our county won’t even enforce the facerag policy, feh
New York bill to create internment camps for the unvaccinated pulled by sponsor
hotair.com ^ | 12/22/21
Posted on 12/22/2021, 1:28:51 PM by cotton1706
On Monday, we looked at a bill (designated as A416) that had been sitting idly in the New York State Assembly for several years which, if passed into law, would effectively create internment camps for unvaccinated residents of the state. A number of outlets picked up on this news and it began creating quite a stir, with reporters questioning the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Nick Perry of Flatbush. This turned out to be precisely the sort of attention that the Assemblyman didn’t want to receive. He began lashing out at people he claimed were spreading a “fire of lies and mistruths.” But he then turned around and pulled the bill, putting an end to the debate… at least for now. (Spectrum News)
The remarkable part of this story is Perry’s insistence that all of the outrage over his bill was the product of “lies and mistruths.” If you go back and read the portions of the bill we highlighted on Monday, the bill proposed doing precisely what everyone was saying it would do. While the legislation didn’t use the specific term “internment camps,” there’s really no other suitable description for what he was proposing. Putting people in “medical facilities” where they are not allowed to leave and potentially forcibly vaccinating them is absolutely nothing short of an internment camp.
Perhaps more alarming was the way that Spectrum News, one of the largest local media outlets in upstate New York, unquestioningly jumped on the bandwagon, saying that the bill had “fueled false COVID-related conspiracy theories.” Since when is publishing and commenting on an existing piece of legislation a “conspiracy theory?”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com …
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHDaP55oJG4_tQyF6fWbkqsR-Ppn7djVL6c6ik_BuKQ/edit
New York bill to create internment camps for the unvaccinated pulled by sponsor
hotair.com ^ | 12/22/21
Posted on 12/22/2021, 1:28:51 PM by cotton1706
On Monday, we looked at a bill (designated as A416) that had been sitting idly in the New York State Assembly for several years which, if passed into law, would effectively create internment camps for unvaccinated residents of the state. A number of outlets picked up on this news and it began creating quite a stir, with reporters questioning the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Nick Perry of Flatbush. This turned out to be precisely the sort of attention that the Assemblyman didn’t want to receive. He began lashing out at people he claimed were spreading a “fire of lies and mistruths.” But he then turned around and pulled the bill, putting an end to the debate… at least for now. (Spectrum News)
The remarkable part of this story is Perry’s insistence that all of the outrage over his bill was the product of “lies and mistruths.” If you go back and read the portions of the bill we highlighted on Monday, the bill proposed doing precisely what everyone was saying it would do. While the legislation didn’t use the specific term “internment camps,” there’s really no other suitable description for what he was proposing. Putting people in “medical facilities” where they are not allowed to leave and potentially forcibly vaccinating them is absolutely nothing short of an internment camp.
Perhaps more alarming was the way that Spectrum News, one of the largest local media outlets in upstate New York, unquestioningly jumped on the bandwagon, saying that the bill had “fueled false COVID-related conspiracy theories.” Since when is publishing and commenting on an existing piece of legislation a “conspiracy theory?”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com …
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHDaP55oJG4_tQyF6fWbkqsR-Ppn7djVL6c6ik_BuKQ/edit
New York bill to create internment camps for the unvaccinated pulled by sponsor
hotair.com ^ | 12/22/21
Posted on 12/22/2021, 1:28:51 PM by cotton1706
On Monday, we looked at a bill (designated as A416) that had been sitting idly in the New York State Assembly for several years which, if passed into law, would effectively create internment camps for unvaccinated residents of the state. A number of outlets picked up on this news and it began creating quite a stir, with reporters questioning the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Nick Perry of Flatbush. This turned out to be precisely the sort of attention that the Assemblyman didn’t want to receive. He began lashing out at people he claimed were spreading a “fire of lies and mistruths.” But he then turned around and pulled the bill, putting an end to the debate… at least for now. (Spectrum News)
The remarkable part of this story is Perry’s insistence that all of the outrage over his bill was the product of “lies and mistruths.” If you go back and read the portions of the bill we highlighted on Monday, the bill proposed doing precisely what everyone was saying it would do. While the legislation didn’t use the specific term “internment camps,” there’s really no other suitable description for what he was proposing. Putting people in “medical facilities” where they are not allowed to leave and potentially forcibly vaccinating them is absolutely nothing short of an internment camp.
Perhaps more alarming was the way that Spectrum News, one of the largest local media outlets in upstate New York, unquestioningly jumped on the bandwagon, saying that the bill had “fueled false COVID-related conspiracy theories.” Since when is publishing and commenting on an existing piece of legislation a “conspiracy theory?”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com …
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHDaP55oJG4_tQyF6fWbkqsR-Ppn7djVL6c6ik_BuKQ/edit
New York bill to create internment camps for the unvaccinated pulled by sponsor
hotair.com ^ | 12/22/21
Posted on 12/22/2021, 1:28:51 PM by cotton1706
On Monday, we looked at a bill (designated as A416) that had been sitting idly in the New York State Assembly for several years which, if passed into law, would effectively create internment camps for unvaccinated residents of the state. A number of outlets picked up on this news and it began creating quite a stir, with reporters questioning the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Nick Perry of Flatbush. This turned out to be precisely the sort of attention that the Assemblyman didn’t want to receive. He began lashing out at people he claimed were spreading a “fire of lies and mistruths.” But he then turned around and pulled the bill, putting an end to the debate… at least for now. (Spectrum News)
The remarkable part of this story is Perry’s insistence that all of the outrage over his bill was the product of “lies and mistruths.” If you go back and read the portions of the bill we highlighted on Monday, the bill proposed doing precisely what everyone was saying it would do. While the legislation didn’t use the specific term “internment camps,” there’s really no other suitable description for what he was proposing. Putting people in “medical facilities” where they are not allowed to leave and potentially forcibly vaccinating them is absolutely nothing short of an internment camp.
Perhaps more alarming was the way that Spectrum News, one of the largest local media outlets in upstate New York, unquestioningly jumped on the bandwagon, saying that the bill had “fueled false COVID-related conspiracy theories.” Since when is publishing and commenting on an existing piece of legislation a “conspiracy theory?”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com …
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHDaP55oJG4_tQyF6fWbkqsR-Ppn7djVL6c6ik_BuKQ/edit
Versions Introduced in Other Legislative Sessions:
2015-2016: A6891
2017-2018: A680
2019-2020: A99
so they were finally crazy enough to try it... somebody musta got skeeerd after it came up again
Thanks for the follow up post. Good to know the rep got called out on that bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.