Letter To The Editor

In a time where opinions are highly censored and people with opinions contrary to the mainstream are deplatformed, ridiculed, doxxed, assaulted, stalked, harrassed, jailed, disappeared, or die under suspicious circumstances, it is encouraging that a news outlet would publish a contrary opinion.

Are We Really All In This Together?

  To say that hypocrisy runs rampant in politics would be overstatement. By definition, hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behaviour or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behaviour does not conform. Sound familiar? Hypocrisy in government was a mainstay in the pre-COVID era with oaths of office deemed only necessary to complete an election process. Newly minted or old status quo politicians solemnly swear to be honest and  transparent arbiters of truth in exchange for a membership to an elite class to whom the rules of law and common decency do not apply. The COVID era hypocrisy is epic.

  During the last two years of the two weeks needed to ‘flatten the curve’, politicians and highly subsidized media outlets have been broadcasting the mantra, ‘We’re All In This Together’. We are told that every measure and inconsistently applied mandate, regardless of whether or not they were based in verifiable science, were put in place to keep us safe. There is ample evidence from highly qualified and moral sources that many of these measures cause more harm than good. This is hypocrisy.

  We have all heard the phrases ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ or ‘Rules for thee but not for me’ more often these days. Politicians, high profile or not, seem to set themselves above the non-laws that they impose on the little people. They thumb their noses at mask, social distancing and gathering non-laws. They violate the mandated travel restrictions and quarantine regulations that they have ordered others to comply with,  violations which can result in fines, arrest, confinement or assault. Many political violations were either minimized in the press or resulted in the stepping down or the reshuffling of the violators. These violations were the actions of an elite class thinking that they were too important to comply, that they were immune from any virus or variant, and the mandates applied to others.

   According to comments made in an interview with City of Airdrie Chief Administrative Officer, Paul Schulz, which appeared in the Nov. 30 edition of Airdrie Today, the policy of mandating that all City of Airdrie employees be vaccinated is an ‘administrative one’ and does not apply to city council. These mandates did not have to go through city council before it was passed. The article goes on to say that Mayor Peter Brown has agreed ‘in principle’ to follow the same rules as administration and could not speak to the vaccination status of all council members. While it would be interesting to know what ‘agreeing in principle’ means, it would also be helpful to know how committed to everyone’s safety city council is. To quote Mayor Brown, “I’ve agreed in principle to follow the same policies as administration” and “Obviously, we interact here and the health and safety of our people, our residents, and members of the public is paramount”.

  It has become abundantly clear that we are entering a new phase of segregation between the never fully vaccinated, those that question the violation of bodily autonomy under debatable circumstances, and those that continue to demand compliance from all parties except themselves.

  Are we really all in this together?   

1 comment