Mandatory Requires Your Consent | Do Not Give It | Say NO To Digital ID | Updated
Dylan Eleven • Truth11.com
They try to trick people into accepting totalitarianism voluntarily by using words like "Mandatory" with their demands.
Mandatory requires your consent. Don't give it.
Mandates are not laws. Mandatory gives off a vibe of you have no choice; which is incorrect. So when Starmer states digital ID is mandatory, you can say no. I do not consent.
🚨🌎🇬🇧 “Today I’m announcing I’m making a Free of Charge Digital ID - Mandatory”
— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) September 26, 2025
“Let me Spell that out - you will not be able to……”
“It’s as simple as that”
Wow - Took a year for Keir Starmer to turn into a fully blown Fascist Communist Dictator and he doesn’t even care ‼️ pic.twitter.com/aBHH8IwrXv
Former Prime Minister Of England, Margaret Thatcher
UPDATE | Jun 5 2026
This is what current Brave AI Search has to say about the subject. And quotes this article in particular.
The bottom line is they are adjusting to this rightful defence and are stating this is not valid:
The last phrase,
informed consent must be voluntary and freely given, and mandatory requirements (like vaccination conditions for employment) are generally upheld as lawful restrictions rather than violations of consent principles.
So just because they name it differently; lawful restrictions, they state it is not a violation of your right to give consent or not. We are supposed to accept that we do not have the right to refuse anything "mandated" by not giving our consent, if we have done nothing wrong. "Generally upheld as lawful restrictions, rather than violations of consent principles". Well isn't that convenient. And what a total pile of crap.
What they are saying is the courts are not siding with reality and are favouring totalitarian control and suppression of human rights.
Follow up Question to AI:
Q |
How does this relate to this definition and statement?.
Mandate
Legal Definition
Blacks Law Dictionary 11th Ed
Mandate (16c) 4. Roman and civil law.
A written command given by a principal to an agent; specif., a commission or contract by which one person (the mandator) requests someone (the mandatory) to perform some service gratuitously, the commission becoming effective when the mandatory agrees.
Statement:
So, it is only mandatory, if you agree to it.
Mandates are not laws.
They are tricking you with words.
A |
Mandates vs. Laws
The statement "Mandates are not laws" is a generalization that holds true for the contract definition but fails in other legal contexts. The word "mandate" has multiple meanings in law:
Contractual Mandate (Civil Law): As defined above, this is a private agreement requiring consent. It is not a law.
Judicial Mandate: This is a binding command from a higher court to a lower court or officer to enforce a judgment. Compliance is not optional; it is mandatory by virtue of the court's authority.
Government/Regulatory Mandate: In modern administrative law, a mandate often refers to an order issued by a government agency (like OSHA or a health department) requiring specific actions (e.g., vaccinations, safety protocols).
These are derived from laws passed by legislatures.
They do not require individual consent to be effective. Refusal to comply can result in legal penalties, fines, or loss of licensure.
The confusion often arises because the same word describes both a voluntary private favor and an authoritative public order.
They are lumping in vaccinations every time to try to validate the concept that we don't have the right to refuse a deadly injection. We have to give informed consent freely, but if we don't we can be fined. That is still coercion and specifically outlawed in the Nuremberg code.
This is war. They are changing and adapting and doing so because they are not done the injection attacks and they are organizing for the digital ID roll out.
No matter what, you don't have to comply to anything that can hurt you. Deadly vaccines obvioulsy because it can kill you, and digital ID because it can enslave you. As a human being you have the right to live and to live freely. They don't have the right to mandate you to be killed or digitally controlled, therefore there argument is completly void.
Their insane statements have no power here.
AI Follow Up Question:
Q |
What about from the point of view that humans have inalienable rights such as the right to live, and if a mandated vaccine can kill, and has killed humans, and the Nuremberg code states we must give informed consent freely, without coercion , yet mandates and fines are coercion, therefore there mandates are invalid?.
A |
You're describing a moral, legal, and philosophical argument that has been made by various scholars, lawyers, activists, and citizens, particularly during the COVID-19 era. There are several distinct claims embedded in it:
People possess inalienable rights, including bodily autonomy and the right to life.
Medical interventions carry risks, including the possibility of serious injury or death.
The Nuremberg Code states that voluntary consent is essential for human experimentation.
Mandates, penalties, or loss of employment can be viewed as coercive, potentially undermining voluntary consent.
Therefore, some argue that vaccine mandates are ethically or legally invalid.
However, whether that conclusion follows legally depends on several disputed issues:
Courts in many countries have generally distinguished between medical treatment and forced medical treatment. In many cases, governments argued that individuals retained a choice, even if refusing carried consequences such as employment restrictions or limits on access to certain activities. [Coercion]
The Nuremberg Code was developed after World War II to address non-consensual human experimentation. A key legal question is whether a vaccine campaign involving approved vaccines constitutes "human experimentation" within the meaning of the principles that inspired the Code. Many courts and public health authorities have said it does not, while critics have argued otherwise. [What a crock of shit, it was a bioweapon: because they state it was not an experiment they can demand you take the bioweapon - ridiculous]
Human rights law often involves balancing competing rights and interests. Governments frequently argue that restrictions can be justified if they are necessary, proportionate, and authorized by law to protect public health. Critics dispute whether particular mandates met those standards. [Especially as it was a genocidal campagin, faked virus farce]
From a philosophical perspective, many people would agree that informed consent obtained under significant pressure is ethically problematic. The disagreement arises over where to draw the line between:
persuasion,
incentives,
workplace requirements,
regulatory conditions,
and coercion.
Reasonable people have reached very different conclusions on that question.
It's also worth noting that the fact that a medical product can cause injury or death in rare cases does not, by itself, determine whether a mandate is lawful. Many laws and regulations involve activities that carry some risk. The legal analysis typically focuses on questions such as the magnitude of the risk, [any risk is unacceptable to the person it kills] the expected benefits [which were fake and lied about], the availability of alternatives [to a fake virus] , and the government's authority to impose the requirement. [Which is none, they claim authority over humanity but they have no real back up to this claim except force and violence, morally no man should rule another]
So, as an argument, the position you've outlined is internally coherent:
If bodily autonomy is absolute, if informed consent must be completely free of coercion, and if mandates constitute coercion, then mandates for medical procedures would be invalid. [So I have a strong point]
The debate occurs because people disagree about those premises and how they apply in practice. Courts, ethicists, and legal scholars have not reached universal agreement on those questions.
Images source: https://diannemarshallreport.com/war-drums-or-special-effects/
Note: Comments placed in [ ] are added by Truth11.com editor. For example; [Flu]
Related:
Comments ()