Courts declaring on matters of science

Vincent J. Curtis

6 May 21

RE: Hamilton police constable among group behind constitutional challenge. Hamilton Spectator 6 May 21.

The Supreme Court of Canada opened the worm-can when it foolishly declared an opinion in science to be true as a matter of law.  Now we see the courts being asked to declare other opinions on matters of science to be true as a matter of law.

It is true as a matter of science that masks are worthless when worn outdoors as a means of preventing the spread of COVID-19.  Last month’s MIT study confirmed that.  But worthless is not the same as ineffective.

It is unnecessary to claim that masks are completely ineffective in avoiding or preventing transmission in order to make a case against the constitutionality of restricting interprovincial travel, the practice of one’ religion, and peaceful gathering.  Those restrictions plainly are contrary to the Charter, and the Section 1 statement that no right is absolute still requires the government to make the iron-clad case in court proving that rights must be limited in the case in question.  The onus is not on the plaintiffs.

A good case can be made that most masks are quite ineffective, but that isn’t the same as completely ineffective; and the category of mask includes the N95 and NIOSH-approved respirators, so not all masks are ineffective, because some are.

I have little hope for the case because no court wants to be accused of being responsible for the deaths of thousands.

30-