Did an anti-vax editorial concede that anti-vaxxers have a valid point?

Vincent J. Curtis

22 Oct 21

RE: Only vaccinated MPs belong in the Commons.  Spectator editorial published 22 Oct 21.

No man’s fortune is safe while the legislature is in session.

The editorial argues that the last few Tory MPs who haven’t been vaccinated should be barred from attending the House because “a massive outbreak of COVID among MPs and others who work in the House would be disastrous.”  See above.

Well, do vaccinates work, or not?  The editors have to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths.  If they work, then the vaccinated MPs and others who work in the House are safe, and a massive outbreak simply won’t occur.  The few Tory MPs who might get infected are getting what they deserve, right?

And if they don’t work, then you’ve just conceded that the vaccine-hesitant have a valid point.  So,, which is it?

The editorial also says that “MPs who collectively govern this country…have a duty to set an example.”  Canada is still a democracy, as the editorial admits, and that means that MPs are under no obligation to toe a party line, even the one they belong to.  MPs are under no obligation to exemplify conformist notions about vaccination, period.  If universal conformity were required of MPs as a condition of attendance in the House on the excuse of setting the good example, then there is no need for opposition parties at all.

Funny how this good example stuff only seems to apply when progressive ideas are at stake.

BTW, the collectivity of MPs who govern the country and who must conform in solidarity belong to what is called “the cabinet.”

Opposition MPs are perfectly entitled to serve as examples of opposition in the House.    There were opposition MPs even in wartime Britain.

-30-