June 16th, 2024

Beeber applauded for column, Thomas’ rejected

By Lethbridge Herald on February 9, 2022.


I applaud Al Beeber for his weekly column in the Lethbridge Herald Feb. 5, Page A9, and reject our M.P. Rachael Thomas’s defence of “Freedom Convoy” on Page A6.

People who oppose mandatory masking and vaccination as the violation of basic human rights need to be reminded that the flip side of freedom is responsibility. 

 The so-called “Freedom Convoy” completely ignores the principle. They are not fighting for freedom. They are hostage takers of responsible citizens. 

 Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who does not want to offend them, and Lethbridge MP Rachel Thomas, who thinks they are fighting for freedom, are misguided. Their argument ignores responsibility. Irresponsible fighters are dangerous.

Canada fought for the democratic freedom for the cause many people risked their lives and died for. 

They say no one can impose rules that violate the rights of personal freedom. Canada fought for freedom risking the lives of many citizens.

 However, in war, there are strict rules of engagement. Soldiers fighting to defend democracy must be the disciplined band of fighters. 

An unruly gang of free-spirited men and women do not make good freedom fighters and are dangerous. 

 In a war, soldiers do not have freedom to disobey orders and rules of engagement. Anyone who ignores the blackout order during the air raid, for example, will be prosecuted as saboteurs. The fight against COVID-19 is a war and a global emergency. We wear masks and vaccinate ourselves primarily to protect fellow citizens. 

Tadashi (Tad) Mitsui


Share this story:

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I would agree that Mr. Beeber and Ms. Pulido Guzman have done some admirable journalism for the Herald on this polarizing issue.


Yes, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Australia, Alberta, Saskatchewan all dropping dropping their mandates, and Rachael Thomas is your problem. Like Paul Joseph Watson says, lock yourself down harder. The elites are losing this one and it shows.

Guy Lethbridge

For Clarity, or maybe just for me, What (or who) is an elite?


those that enjoy exceptionalism and privilege, typically to the degree that they have more rights than others.


In one fell swoop, biff, you’ve described the trucker occupation. Good on ya!


what are you on about? last time i checked no one would have ever confused a trucker with the elite. your vaxed minds have been so clouded you are baffled.


Poor biff. Unaware he has been radicalized.

Guy Lethbridge

Can “elite” be measured ? If I am white , does that alone make me “elite”? I don’t think so ,but (using your definition) someone of non-European heritage may disagree? If I make over $50,000 a year , does that meet the threshold of “elite”? If I’m particularly good at my job , does that make “elite”? What if my job is a surgeon? A pilot?
, tax accountant? A lawyer ….. if I employ any of those people to do my business, maybe I want elite.

I think it’s an important question . if we are going to single them out and blame them, we
Should at least know who they are .


not cetain we can find a scientific measure for elite, but, my definition is reasonable nonetheless. i feel it is mostly a relative relationship.i am sure one of the dictionaries says it better, though. in the context of vax mandates, an elite group of vaxed emerged, who had the fullest rights and privileges available, whereas the unvaxed were forced to the margins with regard to loss of jobs/careers, social outlets, and were scapegoated.


Bollox! You have every “right” to not get a vaccination. You, ALSO, are obliged to attend to the responsibilities associated with such a decision. No one has been forced to have vaccinations.


You, defined by your condescending attitude that you are far superior in mind and intelligence than those that provide your daily sustenance.
That is an elite, those that can’t survive without the worker bees. Next time your lights go out call your favourite university sociology professor. Good luck.

Last edited 2 years ago by buckwheat

as the masks apply to all, they are less the affront to freedom. that vaxes came to be coerced and otherwise forced – such they compromised one’s right to their body, and gave over to the state one’s right to our body, is an affront to freedom. further an affront to freedom was the disenfranchisement of people who chose to exercise their right to their body differently than the official narrative came to demand. further an affront to freedom was the disenfranchisement of those that chose to not vax, and the creation of two unequal classes of people: those that vaxed, and those that did not. there is no choice when said “choice” involves force, coercion, and marginalisation.


No one is FORCING you to get a vaccination, biff. It’s just that those who don’t were asked to take responsibility for their actions by following the rules set in place. It’s your choice, man, to vax or not to vax. But, it’s not your choice to decide arbitrarily which rules you will follow and which rules you will not follow. That is known as tyranny.


how do you miss how twisted and orwellian is such a take? let’s see…govt says you must not drink if you want to have a job. they create an app to monitor whether or not one drinks. if you drink, ever, you lose your job. gosh, imo and most other vaxed fools are thrilled by the freedom of the choice they have been allowed: either never drink, and keep your job, or, you can drink but lose your job. how friggin thick are you vaxed? it really does fk up the brain, doesn’t it?

Last edited 2 years ago by biff

For your own mental health, biff, take a break from whatever media you are following. Seriously, mate, your posts have increasingly demonstrated that you need help with this. I hope you reach out.


Seriously. He’s all over this board trying to defend his idiocy. Though it’s funny to watch him lose what little is left of his mind. lol!


let me try this another way: choices have consequences in and of themselves; laws come with govt created consequences.
example: i choose to rock climb; the consequences will include a higher risk of injury for me relative to those that do not rock climb. that is a risk that comes with such a choice.
with covid vaxes, without mandates, the risk for not vaxing is one may get sick more easily. that is the natural consequence of that choice.
however, govt imposed vax mandates have created further consequences for those choosing to not vax – which are intended to force people to vax – which included loss of job, loss of social outlets.
thus, the consequences that came from “choice” in fact were trumped up such that they became consequences arising from what amounts to govt legislation. in other words, if one does not covid vax, as the govt determines, there will be govt imposed consequences. that is how law works, not choice.
your rights do not extend into the body of another.


to speak to your last consideration: there are rules that are worthy, and rules that are unjust. the vax mandate “rules” fall into the latter category as they infringe upon and negate the right we must have to be the sole arbiter of our body; they negate and infringe upon our right to conscience. that is totalitarian, and that is autocratic.