Dear Editor:
Concerns expressed in my previous letter (Freedoms diminished, April 2) extend far beyond anecdotal personal relationships (one’s partner working frontline) but rather, was intended to allude to the erosion of societal norms, the allotting of extraordinary powers restricting citizen’s movements and behaviour and, as well, the silencing of opposing voices and/or dissent.
The increasing array of voices alluding to the negative impact of a big brother nanny state, complete with snitch lines and the violation of natural rights further confirms my position. The current lockdown has taken away any semblance of normalcy, particularly when playing ball with your child in a park constitutes a crime.
Or that a taxpaying citizen can be charged with trespassing on conservation lands that are closed to “protect the health and safety of employees” working remotely from home.
Dominique Fitzpatrick suggests the LCBO is subject to strict health and safety regulations but churches — that have congregated for the last 2,000 years without incident — are unable to achieve the same.
Indeed, the historical track record of churches should serve as a coveted model for hygiene and health standards, given that beyond weekly services, many host meetings for the addicted, bereaved, the homeless, care for the mentally unstable, while similarly visiting patients in hospitals and clients in long-term care facilities.
Noteworthy also, no science has ever proven that people congregating in a church are any more susceptible to COVID-19 than those frequenting stores, picking up mail, or seeking banking services. But granted, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
But it is the bias that I object to — that opines churches that open “happily risk the lives of fellow faithfuls” — while every other government approved activity (specifically, money-makers) poses no risks to the consumer.
Nevertheless, as the provincial government’s essential list declares, churches do not need a permission slip from government(s) to operate. Likewise, neither should our individual rights and freedoms “under the supremacy of God and rule of law” (as dictated in the Charter) require one either.
Janice Kaikkonen,
Mount Forest