Coercion is not choice.
It is unfortunate we have to continue to have this discussion and with the prime minister, no less.
If nothing else was to come from the last turbulent three years of pandemic measures, I was hoping decision-makers would have at least come away with more wisdom. It appears this won’t be the case.
Let’s start with vaccine coercion.
There are few decisions more personal than undergoing a medical procedure, whether it is surgical or pharmaceutical. The sanctity of your person is to be breached, often for good reason and with good outcomes. No matter how beneficial the procedure may be though, the fully informed consent of the recipient is essential in a civilized, democratic society. Individuals in a stable state of mind must have the right to refuse a procedure no matter how many “experts” say it is for their own good.
Nobody was physically restrained and forced to be vaccinated, but the state coercion efforts didn’t stop too far short of that.
To choose not to take the COVID-19 jab was to choose to lose the right to travel, to be employed in many cases, to attend educational institutions, to dine in restaurants, and to take part in social gatherings. The unvaccinated were turned into social pariahs and treated with such disdain that had they been any other minority group, the country would have been condemned by Amnesty International.
Despite all that coercion, millions of Canadians still chose not to be injected. Their reasons were myriad, from religious to medical. The reasons they chose not to get the shot don’t matter. Clearly, their misgivings with the jab were so deeply held, they were willing to endure all of the penalties for their “choice.”
If there were to be a case made for such coercion of the public for vaccination, it would have to be based on broader public safety. When it became crystal clear the vaccines didn’t prevent the spread of COVID-19, the state should have backed off on coercion efforts. Instead, it doubled down.
We were told that things such as travel, assembly, dining, or having a job are not rights. These are apparently privileges we enjoy with the permission of the state which can be suspended at will if they determine it could be for the public good.
Many people got the jab because they felt cornered. They had bills to pay and places to go. They still feel violated, and hearing the prime minister arrogantly dismiss their concerns adds insult to injury.
The country overstepped its role with its response to the pandemic.
The state broke trust with its citizens, and leaders still don’t understand why.
The tone from the prime minister in his recent question and answer session wasn’t one of humbled wisdom or contrition when looking back at policy failures. It was one of arrogance and confidence in authoritarianism. They were the words of a man who won’t hesitate to suspend individual rights again if he determines such measures are in the public interest. Trudeau learned things during the pandemic, but they were all the wrong lessons.
The truckers’ Freedom Convoy protest was an event unlike any seen in generations in Canada. Citizens who were typically docile rose up and pushed back against the state, and put the government into total panic. History was made and lessons should have been learned. Unfortunately, it appears the prime minister has no idea what happened and why. Because of that, history may repeat itself soon.
