Freedom and Mask Wearing

Anti-Maskers represent possibly the dumbest humanity has to offer. Not because they refuse to wear masks. That part on its own could be chalked up to any number of reasons. Some legitimate, most ill-informed.

And before I dive in, I'll apologize; Stereotypes are an effective means of conveying a broad classification at a glance. I don't actually intend for all people who are against masks to be painted identically. So, if you're reading this, and you don't agree with wearing a mask, but also don't feel certain behaviours typify you with this group, then feel free to assume that for the sake of the article you're not the intended target.

That being said, the broad problems with the movement fall into the following categories; arguments are provably incorrect, target the wrong reasons, or assume an escalated loss of privilege were none exists.

The first is simple. Arguments like it affecting breathing have been proven false. As one doctor stated, anyone whose breathing might be compromised by a mask would already be on oxygen. In short, the while not impossible, it is for all intents and purposes impossible that such a person is up on two feet and has the lung capacity to argue about the restrictions while also being in a such a category where this would legitimately be a health concern.

Granted, I'm not sure I can call this particular fad stupid as it is really more slimy and underhanded. Since it is unlikely any of the people making these claims actually suffer from such a condition, it can be assumed that they are rather taking advantage of the fact that health professionals don't want to make the mistake of saying it is impossible and finding that one in a million case where it isn't. This is just sleazy.

The next problem is targeting the wrong reasons. A common defence is that people choosing not to wear a mask are willing to take the risk. However, wearing a mask isn't meant to protect the wearer, but rather those around them. So, this argument is either made out of ignorance, or again, with full knowledge of the truth but a sleazy unwillingness to accept it.

But, the final problem is the most egregious of all. And on multiple fronts. Claims that governments have no rights to take our freedoms is actually both factually inaccurate and not without precedent. And, also, often misapplied anyway.

If you go to a store and they refuse to serve you because you're not wearing a mask... well stores have ALWAYS had the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as they weren't being discriminatory. And, in this case, at issue is a public health concern. Suffice it to say, it is irrelevant what Provincial or Federal restrictions say about masks. Even without the laws, business owners would be well within their rights to refuse service to these people.

As far as encroaching on our freedoms? Why do you need to wear clothes in public? Aside from winters in Canada or severe weather, it isn't like there is any real threat to anyone from nakedness. But, it is nonetheless illegal.

In that respect, decency laws cut far deeper than mask laws. To avoid arrest for indecency you need to cover a much larger area of your body. And there is no public health benefit to your doing so.

While mask laws on the surface may seem more akin to decency laws. I would argue that they are actually much closer to laws protecting against hate crimes and violence.

We may not tend to think of it as such. But, the fact that it is illegal to shoot a person is a loss of personal freedom. Despite being a "free country" this is illegal because it infringes upon the rights which our constitution seeks to guarantee to all Canadians. And, not wearing a mask infringes upon those same rights. By refusing to wear a mask you know that it is possible that you could spread a dangerous pathogen to those around you, thus jeopardizing their safety.

If anything, governments around the world have been too soft.