Truncheons for thee, press freedom for me

 Vincent J. Curtis

23 Sept 20

RE: The time for fatherly scolding in now past.  Hamilton Spectator editorial of today.  The editorial calls for heavy fines, property confiscation, and even incarceration for people like those who held the Car Show on Sunday.

We started with fear, then cajoling, a foray with reasoning, then shaming, and, recently, scolding.  Now, the Spectator is calling for the truncheon, reluctantly.  Heavy fines, confiscation of property, arrests and jail time.

For what?

The theory is that restricting your freedom might possibly do good for somebody else.  Your compliance for the possible good of people we cannot name and do not know.

What’s the likelihood that that theory, unacceptable as it is, actually works? Today, there is a one in 2,300 chance that the next person you meet in Ontario is an unresolved COVID-19 case – assuming every unresolved case is on the street.  The odds are pretty good against your encountering a contagious, active case.

The enforcement is being levelled at the 99.96 percent of the population who aren’t the problem.  People who aren’t the problem and who know no one who has even been a problem find it hard to accept endless curtailment of their freedom on the basis of faulty reasoning and no tangible evidence.

When the editorial says that people are menaces to public health, and argues that “surely, individual rights are trumped by our collective right to optimal public safety” it argues the case of the tyrant and without evidence.  Individuals who aren’t contagious simply aren’t menaces to public health.  There is no such thing as ‘collective rights.’  What ‘optimal’ public safety is, is a mystery.

Humpty-dumpty has fallen apart, and there’s no put him back together.

-30-