Endangering other peoples’ lives not a Charter right
By Lethbridge Herald Opinion on May 12, 2021.
One of the most important things I’ve learned from COVID is that there are two types of people in this world: those who believe in doing what’s best for everyone even if it means personal sacrifice, and those who see their own inconvenience as unacceptable no matter what.
My parents grew up in England and their generation remembers having to turn out the lights every night for fear of bombs being dropped on their homes. Black-out shades on the windows, lights out, all done to save their lives and their neighbours while living in fear every night that they would be the target of a deadly attack. None of them complained about their rights being infringed upon, they thought of the steps they had to take to save their lives and lives of those around them. Everyone did what they had to for the greater good. Imagine leaving your lights on because you “deny the bombs are real.”It seems crazy doesn’t it, but it’s happening today.
“Show me the evidence” the signs say. Look no further than the obits in this paper. I really wish you could walk into the ICU unit at our local hospital and see what it looks like when someone is on intubation. Fortunately, the hospital security won’t let you in as a way of saving you from yourself.
By making the choice to deny or ignore the reality we face today, you are choosing to endanger your life and the lives of people around you. Every day is another bombing raid by the COVID virus, every day we have choices to make about balancing our “rights” versus the well-being of ourselves and those around us.
Nowhere in our Canadian Charter of Rights does it say you have the right to endanger the lives of your fellow citizens.
The Charter does say, in Section 7, that we have the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Does it not seem to say that all lives and the security of those lives should be protected? Section 9 says “Everyone has the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.” Arbitrarily? There is nothing arbitrary about COVID and the threat it imposes. I would venture to say most of the people waving their “rights” have never read the Canadian Charter. If they had they would realize they are talking without basis, another one of those social media myths “I heard this so I’ll repeat it and therefore it’s true” based on nothing more than fear of reality.
March with your signs, don’t get vaccinated, deny all you want but the facts won’t change – we are in this for way too long already.
As long as a small percentage of our population leaves a light on during the bombings, we will be in it for a lot longer, too. Seriously, wearing a mask and social distancing are infringements on your rights? Try hiding in your home, lights out, waiting for a bomb to drop. Have your modern day temper tantrums all you want but turn out the lights please.
-1
✔️
Well said Brian and the majority of people agree with you.
No, endangering other peoples’ lives is not a Charter right, but neither is forcing others to conform to your wants/desires to help you feel safe. How can we solve such a conundrum? Let’s discuss….
Your premise of endangering other peoples’ lives not being a Charter right is a red herring and you know it, or at least should. I don’t think your analogy works here either, but lets run with it since John and Doug seem to like it…. if you had a 99+% chance of surviving (and in many cases, not even knowing) if you were hit with one of these bombs then leaving the lights on would’t be such a big deal, would it? Your desire to shame, belittle, and destroy those leaving their lights on wouldn’t make much sense would it? Then we have those that just have a natural glow about them and are more susceptible to the bombs, as it were. Of course, we’re talking about those that are obese, and/or have any number of other serious health problems that make them more susceptible to other bombs too, not just the super scary covid-19 bomb, but I digress. Maybe we could keep these glowy types safe in an underground bunker where they could glow away and be safe until we inoculate them and increase their survivability to more than their natural 94, or 95+% . Everyone else could take their chances with the bombs…. knowing that they become immune to the bombs if one should ever strike them keeping these glowy ones even safer in the long run by developing herd immunity to the attacks. Heck, I’d even give the glow worms their God given right (supersedes the charter) to wander as they please. Now, we can agree that those that are hit with a bomb and then become sick should stay home and away from others until their runny nose and cough subside, but once they have they’ve helped to make everyone else safer. Nice work! (Like I said, I never liked your analogy, but I had to work with what you gave me.)
Your argument that folks on the other side of the issue from you just don’t believe covid is real is disingenuous, and insulting, as well…. c’mon, man! I haven’t heard any sincere, honest person argue that the virus isn’t real and I don’t believe you have either. Obviously, the “Show me the evidence” signs you reference are an appeal to an honest debate that what we have been asked to do for the last year plus makes a real difference, because there isn’t a whole lot of “settled” science on this. Experts have been all over the map and have contradicted themselves many times throughout the last year. Experts with the “wrong” opinion are silenced, or ignored. It really has been a gong show and an appeal for evidence is not unfounded, no matter how frustrated it makes you.
It’s not selfish to insist upon your God given and Charter rights, neither of which allow the government, or others, to force their will upon you no matter how well intentioned, or popular. And of course we all know the famous truth that those that would trade their rights for a little security end up with neither. History is replete with examples that support this hard truth.
There’s so much you can do to keep yourself ‘safe’ without forcing your values/wants on others. These other folks aren’t endangering you if they aren’t running up to you, or coming to your house to sneeze, cough, and/or lick you when they’re sick. They don’t even want to force you to see it/do it their way. They’re quite happy for you to triple mask, stay home, socially distance, wear a space suit, and whatever the heck else you want to do to keep yourself ‘safe.’ Please give them the same courtesy. You’ll see they have no desire to hurt, or endanger you.
Never in history have we forcibly quarantined the healthy to make the sick feel better harming countless others in countless ways in the process. Life can be scary and is a risk at the best of times, my friend. Embrace it, do the best you can without subjecting others to the your way, or the highway, type of “I know best for everyone”-ism, and carry on.
It’s interesting… I see you as belonging to the second group of people that you mentioned at the beginning of your comments above and those fighting/arguing for their, your, and our rights as belonging to the first group.
Health, happiness, and freedom to you all!
Another self-appointed expert who thinks they trump public health orders.
Another boring rant for ‘freedom’ …yawn…
Not at all, my friend! I claim no expertise on this subject, or any other that I comment on…. just sharing an opinion, as the original poster did – this is the opinion section after all (wink, wink). However, I do read the experts and have thoughts, feelings, and questions about what is being shared and what I see happening. I’m not a fan of the ‘shut up and obey’ crowd, but I’m cool if you are. Your opinion is welcome here. You see, this is how freedom works… it’s good for you, me, and everybody – even during an emergency/pandemic (maybe especially during an emergency). All the best!
Endangering other’s lives not a charter right? I’m sure Jesus would agree. And we see so-called christians not even wearing masks in public places. Would they want their surgical team to do open abdominal surgery on them without masks, for example? The health professions certainly, know, that masks are effective.
Hey SA, I think we can safely let Jesus sit this one out…. No one thinks it’s a charter right to endanger others. The article headline is so patently obvious as to be comical. What is just as comical (perhaps scary is more like it) is that there is a lot of people out there who think that breathing outside of your own home is endangering everyone else. Everyone is endangering everyone else… except me – is the general consensus out there right now, which is sad, but true.
You win…. you’re right…. we’re doomed! Soon, there’ll only be be 99.98% of us left! Just like after every flu season… but let’s shut it all down and hate on each other this time to let some politician/bureaucrat feel self important while ignoring their real jobs of holding sacred, and protecting, our rights and freedoms. Yet another round of ‘let me save you from all the trouble I’m causing.’
If masks are so wonderful why haven’t we always been wearing them to save tens of thousands of lives every flu season for the last 100 years? Because they are ineffective against respiratory viruses… you’re surgery vs everyday life mask wearing comparison is perhaps not the best one. However, as H2ofield points out, I’m no expert, so I’d like to let them speak for themselves…
Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine wrote that “despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.” Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta says there is no need for masks unless one is elderly or high risk. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya has said that “mask mandates are not supported by the scientific data. . . . There is no scientific evidence that mask mandates work to slow the spread of the disease.” A new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professors Martin Z. Bazant, professor of chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John W.M. Bush, professor of applied mathematics found the following about social distancing: “The distancing isn’t helping you that much and it’s also giving you a false sense of security because you’re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you’re indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually.” Throughout this pandemic, the WHO’s “Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19” has included the following statement: “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” The CDC, in a review of influenza pandemics in May 2020, “did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.” And until the WHO removed it on October 21, 2020—the WHO had published the fact that “the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”
There is more ‘science’ in the above paragraph than Fauci or Hinshaw, or anyone else has given you over the last year. They’re grasping at straws hoping you’ll believe them and go away. Masking and social distancing are all security theatre, but it makes us feel good, like we’re doing something, so we do it, and shame those who don’t as selfish and dangerous. Sad, but here we are…
If ‘Two weeks to flatten the curve’ worked, why are we doing it again? If it didn’t work, why are we doing it again? Deep thoughts…
Good day!
Another load of misguided crap. Thanks for showing up, Skippy!
You’re most welcome, my friend!
peiganman provides an excellent alternative to what amounts to an argument laid upon a poor foundation. to compare compliance to covid vaccines to compliance to war measures is nonsense; to champion covid measures with a poor interpretation of our charter rights is also nonsense.
the charter allows those that want the vaccine to access it; it also, therefore, allows for those that do not want it – or, to allow one to wait for more information upon which to base their rightful decision. the charter, however, is not to be applied unequally: therefore, more freedom for “vaccinated” and less for others is not the way of freedom. as for the comparison to war, what is the enemy here? is it an illness that seriously compromises a fraction of a percent that get it, or is it the lack of information and the plethora of misinformation (on all sides) that is more the enemy?
what has been missing in the times of covid is something that has increasingly been missing with contentious and often polarising issues: open and honest debate. there is hardly a middle anymore – shouting louder and loudest, and the perception of oneself being privy to and owning “absolute knowledge” preclude the acknowledgement of alternative and conflicting information. while propaganda and official narratives and yellow journalism and a hijacked mass media are nothing new, we have become sublimely numbed and dumbed in the post 9/11 era. that some things are just not open to debate, and a complete and unadulterated, transparent study – that seems to be the real enemy today, and a most significant attack on charter rights and freedoms.