What science?

Vincent J. Curtis

5 May 21

RE: Illegal protests should have consequences.  Hamilton Spectator editorial of May 5, 2021.

When the science is against you, go with the law.  When the law is against you, go with raw emotion.

Had the Stoney Creek freedom protest been protesting the death of George Floyd instead, the Spectator wouldn’t say a word about punishing the organizers.  “Their raw emotion was for a good and righteous cause, and that’s all that mattered!”  But because they were protesting to get their own freedom back, and being largely “white folks,” they need the book thrown at them.  Large gatherings outdoors are against the law!!

Except, well, there’s problems with the law.  The “health” orders were not democratically passed by a legislature, and regardless, they’re contrary to the Charter, which is why people were protesting to get their freedom back.  Their freedom from lawfare.

The Floyd riots last year turned out not to be “spreader” events, because they occurred outdoors.  That’s what you call “empirical evidence” in science lingo.  Outdoors activities with large crowds are okay.  Then, last month, a modelling study from MIT determined that the reason outdoors activities are safe is because the virus can’t accumulate outdoors, and a body needs to inhale a certain minimum amount of the virus to get infected.  The empirical evidence and theoretical modelling constitute the science that shows restrictions on activities and size of crowds outdoors are without scientific basis.  They’re bunkum, in plainer English.

There is no scientific or constitutional basis to limit gatherings outdoors.

-30-