I keep trying to hit on ways to communicate the violation of due course of law presented by mask mandates and lockdowns. The fundamental idea of due course of law is that the law should presume us innocent until being proven guilty. And another fundamental of due course of law is that the elements of a crime need to be properly specified and each element must be proven before a person can be convicted and punished.
To respect those fundamental concepts, you cannot define a crime in a way that presumes the most fundamental of the elements in the crime - in this case the actual harm intended to be avoided - to be a committed in the definition of the crime. But that is what mask mandates do. The presume you guilty of being a contagious threat to others and punish you if you do not wear the mask, whether you actually ARE a threat to others or not.
A mask mandate (and a lockdown) presume you guilty of being a threat without even a chance to prove your innocence.
With this meme's formulation, I play with the ridiculous "Did you just assume my gender?" attack and apply it to the mask mandate. The use of the formulation in regards to gender is ridiculous because one cannot wish reality away. You cannot change the DNA you are born with. So accurately identifying the reality of a person's gender is far from being a failing. It is a virtue.
But assuming someone's state of health, presuming them to be contagious and therefore a threat and requiring some restriction of liberty as a result is a violation of the presumption of innocence and therefore due course of law.
I hope I have not ruined what is intended to be humorous with over-analysis. But they say many a truth is said in jest.
The truth is that mask mandates and lockdowns are unjust (and unhealthy) presumptions that everyone is a threat when those presumptions are false in the vast majority of situations.
Be the first to comment
Sign in withFacebook Twitter