Category Archives: Epidemics/Pandemics

The religion of Us vs. Them

Epidemics/Pandemics, Evangelical Christianity, religion

 

I have bravely commented before in this blog that when religion leads to hate, it is no longer religion.  I still believe that. More firmly than ever in fact. But obviously, many religious adherents, though not all, think otherwise. Unsurprisingly, this is coming up during COVID-19.  Dan Lett a Winnipeg Free Press opinion columnist has written a recent piece commenting on this phenomenon.

He commented on statements made by Manitoba’s Minister of Justice Cameron Friesen who happens to represent the region of Manitoba that contains Winkler and the Rural Municipality of Stanley, that have the lowest rates of vaccine uptake in the province and the highest rates of COVID-19. For more than a month now, the Southern Health Region of Manitoba that contains those two communities, and of course, Steinbach and our surrounding rural municipality of Hanover, which also have similar rates, have had very low rates of vaccine uptake and very high rates of new COVID cases. Friesen was recently asked about the news that many people in his region were attending church services in private homes and bars in efforts to get around Manitoba’s public health orders that prevented them from meeting together in churches as closely as they wanted.

Friesen was asked if the province would start enforcing those health orders.  That was hardly a surprising question, but his response was surprising. As the Winnipeg Free Press reported,

“Friesen assured Manitobans that enforcement was taking place but that it would be difficult to find the underground churches, and that the government’s efforts may not necessarily result in fines or tickets.

“We’re also trying to send the message that we know how important it is for people to gather to meet their spiritual needs.”

 

Holding both of those positions at once is about like riding two horses at the same time. When they inevitably ride apart, the rider is bound to get a splitting headache or worse. As Lett said, “In one sentence, Friesen confirmed this government’s tolerance for the deliberate actions of some that has sparked and driven a dangerous fourth wave of COVID-19.”

Lett concluded this was clear evidence that the Manitoba government was prepared to acquiesce in allowing Christians to break the law. Lett believes this suggests the Conservative government of Manitoba is prepared to permit the perpetual pandemic that could follow. As Lett said,

“A combination of tolerance, education and enforcement has not been able to convince tracts of people in some communities in southern Manitoba to embrace public health orders. The Morden-Winkler area in particular has become an epidemiological and ideological battleground, with the province’s health-care system caught in the crossfire.”

 

As I mentioned, Steinbach is really in that same community though with a little less rebellious vigour.

Lett suggested that at the very least Friesen ought to have told Manitobans

“While acknowledging the importance of worshipping in person, Friesen could have said now was not the time for worship in large numbers not permitted by public health orders. Further, he might have shown the courage to serve his fellow Christians an inconvenient truth: in-person worship is important, but it is not a transcendent Christian value.”

 Lett pointed out that for some reason Churches in southern Manitoba in particular have put in-person worship during the pandemic as a tradition that trumps all others. He asked, what happened to other Christian values? The vast majority of other churches have accepted, though often not without reluctance, that Manitoba has the right to impose restrictions on gatherings, even religious gatherings, to try stem the tide of the disease.

 As Lett opined,

 “Increasingly, the leaders of these churches turn to the Bible in an effort to justify their emphasis on in-person worship. And to be sure, worshipping in a group is an important element in the Christian identity.

However, many other religious leaders have made it clear: this one element of faith was never intended to take precedence over other Christian imperatives like loving one another, and making sacrifices for our family, friends and neighbours.”

 

After that Lett asked a very good question, namely, how did we get into this mess?  Lett suggested the cause was “many of the truly die-hard anti-vax, anti-mask and anti-social distancing citizens find community with each other through churches.”

 This leads me to the point I wanted to make. Many churches have shown their willingness to abide by Manitoba’s health orders and have recognized that God does not require in person church services at all times. But these churches, mainly from southern Manitoba, have instead demonstrated that they have, what Lett called,  an “us against the world” philosophy” that  runs deep.” That is precisely the attitude I believe is deeply anti-religious. When churches find that attitude running deep, they should consider whether or they are still religions at all.

Lett concluded his column by saying,

“Whether he’s deferring to constituents in an effort to preserve his political career, or he truly believes individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, his comments are irresponsible. But he utters them with knowledge and comfort that in certain faith circles, he is a hero.”

 

I would go even farther than Lett. I would suggest that perhaps he is not even catering to a faith group at all, but rather, a group of thugs who think they can do whatever they want in the name of religion. Is thugs too strong a word? I think not. You can call them Christians. I call them thugs.

 

Vaccine Mandates are Morally Permitted

Epidemics/Pandemics, Freedom, Human rights, Liberalism

Vaccine Mandates are Morally Permitted

 

Mill’s principle says that the only reasonable limit on freedom is the prevention of harms to others. What is the harm in refusing to take vaccines?

The way I see it there are a number of  harms that are avoided by compelling others to take vaccines they do not want to take. One of them is that refusal to take vaccines gives the deadly virus that causes Covid-19 an increased opportunity to spread that it should not have. The longer the virus is allowed to circulate the more people can get infected, and seriously ill, or even die. The more people get vaccinated the better the chance is that the virus will be stopped in its tracks. Scientists have persuaded me that widespread vaccination is our best chance at stopping the virus. People who resist the vaccines are helping the virus to spread and infect others. This is a serious harm to others.

There is significant evidence that the virus can be spread by the vaccinated as well as the unvaccinated. If it were equally possible for either group to spread the virus there would be no reason for us to impose vaccines on others, on that  basis since it would not make a difference to others.  The chance of others  catching Covid-19 would then be no higher or lower than   Then a vaccine mandate would not justified on this basis at least.  So far as I have learned the spread is greater by the unvaccinated so I think the case is still strong that imposing a vaccine on others against their will is permissible to avoid the greater harm to others.

As well, the longer the virus is allowed to circulate unchecked the greater the chances that the virus will evolve and develop new variants that are even more dangerous than the ones we have now. This can endanger not just us in the vicinity but actually people around the world. We are seeing this right now around the world with the spread of the new virus Omicron. We also saw it earlier with the evolution of the Delta variant. New variants might be available to evade the vaccines again putting other people at great risk of harm.

These are serious harms that people who refused to get vaccinated without a sound medical exemption are inflicting on others, so, in my opinion, the majority has the right to compel people to take the vaccine. I think the case for vaccine mandates is a strong one.

Limits on Freedom

Epidemics/Pandemics, Ethics, Freedom, Liberalism

 

John Stuart Mill pointed out, more than 150 years ago, that much of what makes life good is dependent upon controlling or limiting interference by other people. This is really the basis of liberalism. This limitation is critical to the enjoyment of life. Some limits are absolutely necessary, while others are not.  His book On Liberty tries to define those limits. It is worth reading. I recently re-read it after many years.

In essence the problem, as Mill defined it, is that even in a democracy we must be able to resist the imposition of duties by the majority in some cases, though not all. For example, no one would argue that it is wrong to prohibit murder or assaults. Would the imposition of a vaccination mandate by the majority as represented by its elected  government fit into the category of permitted or non-permitted infringements of freedom? That is the question I am trying to answer in a meandering fashion. Mill sought a principle that would assist people in determining into which category an example or proposed example of government interference would fit.  I think that is a worthy goal.

This is the principle that Mill proposed:

“That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forebear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him,  but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amendable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

 

That is the reasonable limit on a person’s freedom.

Mill also reminds that this does not mean one can do whatever one chooses to do no matter what the consequences.  Famously, others have said, ‘your freedom to swing your hand stops at my nose’. They really mean at anyone else’s nose. Mill put it more elegantly this way: “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our good in our way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

 Mill accepts only 1 important qualification, that this principle is only for the benefit of “human beings in the maturity of their faculties.” Children cannot claim the benefits of this principle, in Mill’s view, and must abide by instructions imposed on them by their parents, and to some extent even others.

With some qualifications that I won’t get into here, I accept this principle. How does this principle apply to the question at hand? How does it apply to the case of whether or not it is permitted for society to say we demand everyone to be vaccinated unless there is a good  reason for not doing so?

Clearly, on the basis of these principles, we should be allowed to take the vaccine or not, as we choose, so long as we do not harm others by our choice. I agree with that. Does refraining from taking the vaccine harm others? On its face, the vaccine is designed to protect ourselves from the most harmful effects of Covid-19. But this does not resolve the matter. Our choice can affect others. In other words, if the evidence establishes that my refusal to take the vaccine affects others that is significant, and if the harm caused is great enough could warrant an imposition that compels me to take the vaccine to some extent at least.

Tyranny of the Majority

Epidemics/Pandemics, Freedom, Human rights, Liberalism

 

John Stuart Mill also recognized that just because society made  decisions (such as to impose vaccine sanctions or not) in a democratic manner would not give the decision the right to override the essential liberties. There should be limits on the power of society through the ruler, even if a democratic ruler, over members of society—i.e. individuals. That is exactly what liberty means. Certain immunities or “political liberties or rights” would be so important that it would be regarded as a breach of the duty in the ruler” if he infringed them, even if that rule consisted of a democratic ruler, such as Parliament. As Mill said, “The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community.” Even democratic governments must abide by these limitations.

 

Mill recognized that the people, or a majority of the people, in some cases might want to oppress an individual or a part of a group.  Just like liberty is not absolute, so the power of the ruler/authority must therefore be limited or constrained as well and cannot be absolute. Some people forget this important aspect of Mill’s thought. Some people think that provided a decision is made by the majority they can do whatever they want. Mill denies this.  There must be limits even on the power of the majority.  In fact, Mill had a powerful expression for this—i.e. “the tyranny of the majority.” Mill said, “ ‘the tyranny of the majority’ is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.” So, just because the majority of the people think they should impose the obligation on an individual to get vaccinated does not of itself make that decision just.

Mill waxed eloquent on this subject:

“Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling…There is limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.”

 

Really what Mill is arguing in favour of is what we now call a liberal or constitutional democracy. That means a democracy that is subject to the human rights of the individuals. A democratic society cannot do anything it wants to do. There must be reasonable limits on that power and Mill helps us to understand what those limits are.

John Stuart Mill on Liberty

Epidemics/Pandemics, Freedom, Human rights, Liberalism

 

I think we can gain a better understanding of the issue of mandates by looking at what English philosopher John Stuart Mill said in the 19th century. In my opinion he has helped to shed light on many important social issues by his careful analysis of liberty.

John Stuart Mill set out well the rationale for allowing individuals to be free (autonomous) to decide for themselves what medical treatments to take or not take.

He asked a preliminary question to set out the issue clearly.  He asked,

“What, then, is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? Where does the authority of society begin?  How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and now much to society?”

 

That is precisely the question raised by the mandate issue. Should the individual be allowed to decide for himself or herself whether or not to take the vaccines or can society legitimately make the decision instead? Note that unlike many modern people who deny that the state has the right to impose virtually any restrictions on them, let alone vaccines, Mill recognized that there were restrictions on freedom and he wanted to understand what those limits were.

Mill said, in trying to answer this question, the following:

“Each will receive its proper share, if each has that which more particularly concerns it. To individuality should belong that part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society.”

 

If society is of greater interest in the answer to the question then the individual, then it ought to be allowed to make the decision. If the individual is more interested in the question  then he or she should be permitted to decide.

Mill did not say society had no right to get involved in the personal affairs of individuals. For example, Mill said “Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter.” As a pertinent example, in society there is no objection to trying to persuade individuals to take a vaccine if society has evidence that this course of action would be good for the individual and society. Society has the right to do that.  But does it have the right to go further and impose an obligation to take one of the vaccines?  According to Mill,

“But neither one person nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most interested in his own well-being; the interest which any other person, except cases of strong personal attachment , can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has; the interest which society has in him individually (except as to his conduct to others) is fractional, and all together indirect; while with respect to his own feelings and circumstances , the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else. (emphasis added)”

 

Please note the vitally important qualification which I have highlighted.  Therefore, Mill concludes, with regard to what concerns only himself, society has no right to override the individual’s decisions. Mill said,

“in this department, therefore, of human affairs, Individuality has its proper  field of action…Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others: but he himself is the final judge.  All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning are outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.”

 

On this basis, individuals would be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to take a Covid-19 vaccine, provided his actions do not affect others.  That then becomes the central question: do they affect others and to what extent?

Back in 1859 when Mill wrote On Liberty, he realized that It would be “a vital question of the future,” what the nature and limits of the power  which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” On that point he was indubitably right as the current debate over the propriety of a vaccine mandate makes clear.

 

 

Autonomy: A society of adults

Epidemics/Pandemics, Liberalism

 

One of the things Chris and I like about the Phoenix area of Arizona is the University of Arizona. In particular we found it is nice to be close to a major university. The university had a wonderful array of activities from plays to concerts and above all world class professors and speakers. All open to the public and usually at no cost to us. I am amazed at how many of them we got to hear.  One of those very interesting speakers was Dierdre McCloskey. We heard her speak in 2020.

Deirdre McCloskey is Distinguished Professor Emerita of Economics and of History, and Professor Emerita of English and of Communication, adjunct in classics and philosophy, at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Educated at Harvard as an economist she has written 24 books and numerous articles. This is how she describes herself: a “literary, quantitative, postmodern, free-market, progressive-Episcopalian, ex-marxoid, Midwestern woman from Boston who was once a man. Not ‘conservative’! I’m a Christian classical liberal.” I did not agree with everything she said, but everything was very interesting. She was a very interesting speaker.

She talked to us about innovation. According to McCloskey, “liberty is the theory of adult.  At first that seemed like a strange description.  Eventually I think I caught on. Adults are free. Youngsters are not. Adults have the right to infringe on the rights of young people in their care for their own good and protection, but only while they are in need of such interference. At some stage, minors get to be treated like adults and then have the same freedoms as adults. According to McCloskey, “Liberalism is the theory of the society of adults.” Other theories, such as socialism, treat adults as children. They assume we, or the government, know what’s best for you. She wants a society where adults make their own decisions.  So do I, subject to the qualifications.

McCloskey argues for a very strong autonomy. We should be able to make all decisions about our own welfare on our own terms without interference from others. No one should tell us what to do in other words. That is autonomy. I quite agree that autonomy is a very important social value, but like all values it is not absolute. In some circumstances the public’s right to ensure that its members are given reasonable security and that actions of its citizens won’t harm them unnecessarily. Each of us has a right to live in a healthy and safe society.  Again, like all values, this right must be balanced against other rights as well. I shall try to clarify a test that can help us establish whether or not a particular infringement of a right is justified or not. To do that. I want to turn in my next post to the classic liberal philosopher of all time—namely John Stuart Mill.

Mandates & the Duty to Accommodate

Epidemics/Pandemics, Human rights

Even in considering moral questions it is often useful to consider some legal principles. The law is not always an ass.

In order to establish that one has a right to impose a curtailment of a right on others, the law often requires the imposer, such as the government, to establish that it has made all reasonable efforts to accommodate the other person. I think that is a reasonable principle.

Where a person claims to have a religious right to decline to take any of the Covid-19 vaccines and it is determined that in the circumstances an important freedom, such as the right to security of the person, or the right to dignity, can be overridden in the circumstances, society or the government as its representative, has a duty to provide reasonable accommodation for abridging the freedom. That does not mean it must cave in to all of the demands of the resisters, no matter how unreasonable.  Resisters must be reasonable as well. For example, society could be required to accept an alternative to compulsory vaccination in some circumstances, such as providing that the supplicant for an exemption could be given the right to provide a recent Covid-19 test that reasonably establishes that the applicant is not a carrier of Covid-19. That is the course of action Manitoba has followed in its mandates for Health care workers to be vaccinated or get frequently tested. Other jurisdictions have been harsher. Some have been more gentle. Who is right?  It depends on how important it is to have people vaccinated and how effective the tests are compared to the vaccines.

I think looking at the analogy of expropriation might be helpful. We have a society where each of is entitled to own property to the exclusion of others. That is called the right to private property. It is  a very important right, but that right is never absolute. Government has the right to expropriate private  property (which really means to take it) provided it pays fair value, actually needs the property and follows the rules of fairness. It is always important to remember that any right, no matter how sacred, is not absolute.

Doctors Manitoba has some helpful suggestions for accommodations : “frequent testing, continued use of protective gear and physical distancing or barriers to separate them from other workers.” That seems pretty fair to me.

Such reasonable accommodation could be required to get judicial approval or moral approval for imposing a vaccine mandate.  This could be required if it can be established that the Covid-19 testing was reasonably reliable enough to warrant society being required to accept such a test result and may not require the applicant to get vaccinated as a result.

A government should always make reasonable efforts to accommodate people whose rights are being abridged. Sometimes however, reasonable accommodation just won’t be possible.

 

Vaccine Mandate Exemptions

Epidemics/Pandemics, Human rights

 

It is generally admitted that some people ought to be exempt from taking the vaccine. Manitoba has recently clarified who would be exempt and who would not. The list of acceptable excuses for not getting vaccinated in Manitoba is now quite narrow. For example, a note from a physician is not enough. If one can establish that one is allergic to the vaccines that is a valid excuse for not taking it in Manitoba. Other allergies are not good enough to qualify for exemption.

Only if a qualified medical physician said it would be more dangerous for a person to take vaccine than to risk the possible ill effects of taking the vaccine would a person be permitted to avoid taking the vaccine. I think that is the rationale.

Of course, some of our elected politicians are taking advantage of the exemption rules, or at least are trying to do that. 4 Members of Parliament, including Ted Falk who represents the riding in which I live, is not saying why he is absent from Parliament. Recently Parliament tightened its rule about Members claiming a medical exemption. The new rule requires Members of Parliament to qualify under the stricter Ontario provincial rules and since then 4 Conservative Members have not been able to go to the House of Commons. Mr. Falk is one of them.

Someone  said there are so few qualified medical exemptions that it is virtually impossible for so many Conservative Members to claim the exemption. I heard that it would be as unlikely as winning 4 lotteries! Yet our Member of Parliament continues to not to say whether he is vaccinated or is claiming a medical exemption.  In my view he is not showing much leadership on such an important issue, but frankly I am not surprised. What would have surprised me would have been learning that he was fully vaccinated.

So-called religious exemptions are also not acceptable in Manitoba, even though one church, the Springs Church in Winnipeg that a lot of people from Steinbach attend, attempts to issue religious exemptions, but they have no legal effect. Few religious adherents to my knowledge have even tried to argue for a coherent religious exemption.

I guess it is a bit like heaven. Many want to get in, but some think they can get special exemptions.

 

The question of mandates

Epidemics/Pandemics

 

Many people in Canada and elsewhere are debating whether or not it would be justifiable to mandate that all Canadians get fully vaccinated against Covid-19, unless they have good medical grounds for not taking them.  Saying one does not want to take the vaccine would not be enough. Unless you are entitled to a genuine medical exemption the law would to some debatable extent require you to be vaccinated. To some extent we are already there. The law requires you to be vaccinated to cross the Canadian border. The law now requires some people with some jobs to be vaccinated, or at least be tested regularly.

 

Would such an imposition be morally acceptable in a free and democratic society? What about freedom of security—i.e. that one has the right to determine for oneself what can be placed inside one’s body. For example, one cannot be compelled to take any medical treatment if one is not harming others, even if it is very unwise to decline the treatment and, in fact, even if declining the treatment would likely lead to one’s own death. This is the right of autonomy. It is a very important right. But even this right is not absolute.

First of all, we must realize there is a spectrum of mandates. It is one thing to say to anyone, on penalty of law, you must get vaccinated, no matter what you think of it. If the person does not agree would that person be held down while health officials jab the arm of the resister? That would be an extreme form of mandating a vaccine. Very few of us would say the law should go that far. But some do. On the other hand, to say, on penalty of law, that if you do not get vaccinated you are not entitled to go to a movie theatre, sporting event, cultural event, bar restaurant, etc. is another form of mandating. This type of mandate is a little less extreme. Few of us object to this. But some do. This is a much milder form of mandate, but it is a mandate. I happen to think it is a valid one perfectly justifiable in a free and democratic society. This would withdraw a privilege for one who does not consent to get vaccinated, but it is not as extreme as my first example. Yet both are forms of vaccine mandates.

 

I want to explore this issue farther in future posts. How far can the government go in mandating vaccines? When is a form of mandate morally acceptable? When not? If it is justified how far can we go? I think these are all important questions.

The questions is how far can we go in mandating vaccines and is it justifiable under the Canadian constitution? Is it legal. Is it moral?  Right now these are big questions because of the large number of people that are resisting vaccines. These are people I am calling Resisters. I want to meander through these moral and legal questions.

How far can we Go?

Epidemics/Pandemics

 

Recently, a friend of mine said he wished Canada was more like Germany in opening up its economy. Soon after that,  Germany became the centre of Covid in Europe if not the world. Chancellor Angela Merkel widely hailed as the best leader in Europe in the last half century or longer, said she favored imposing mandatory vaccines on the unvaccinated in Germany. Promptly thereafter the incoming Chancellor echoed her comments. Austria has already imposed vaccine mandates. I have not heard the details, but they are treating the issue seriously. I don’t think my friend will advocate we follow Germany and Austria down that path.

The German Minister of Health made an astonishing remark. He said, “before the end of the winter everyone in Germany will be vaccinated, recovered, or dead!’ Pretty strong views.

Dr. Hans Kluge, the Regional Director of the World Health Organization for Europe said that Europe had to take matters relating to Covid seriously because it was now having more than half of the new Covid cases in Europe.

Meanwhile, in places like Austria where the government is trying to impose a vaccine mandate tens of thousands of people have taken to the street in protest.  The debate there make is likely to be very heated.

Dr. Kluge asked a very pertinent questions” Does anyone have the right to make someone sick avoidably?” Many people say no and want to impose vaccines on people who don’t want to take.  Others think that is too extreme.

I say all of this by way of introduction to the issue I want to discuss.  Recently a friend asked “is it legally permissible to impose a vaccine mandate on people who don’t want to take the vaccine?”   I answered immediately without thinking, “no.!”  It took me about 15 seconds to say, “I change my mind, it is legally permissible to impose vaccines.” That was one of my fastest flip flops ever.  But was my second view correct? What about our constitutional rights? Is it morally permissible in Canada to compel people to take vaccines? Even if it is moral and legal to impose vaccines, is it wise?  I think these are very interesting and very important questions and I would like to tackle them. This will take a number of posts for there are many issues to meander through.

I hope you join me on this journey.