By Romi Jain
The outbreak of the COVID-19 triggered not only humanity’s fight against the common foe, but managing it sparked divisions along ideologies and personal beliefs almost across the globe, thought to varying degrees. For instance, the right-wing and left-wing discord over mask requirement partly surfaced at the intersection of personal freedom and civic obligation in the United States.
Lately, the anti-vaccine passport protests in Canada have assumed the color of a stance against discrimination. The Province of British Columbia has introduced the following requirement for the public: “You now need proof of vaccination to access some events, services and businesses. The easiest way to show proof is using the BC Vaccine Card. Get your card today.” Notably, the restriction is confined to specified places and events deemed risky in spreading the virus. As such, the provincial website lists at least 16 places that are exempt.
Protesters including businesses such as independent photographers, restaurants and massage parlours claim that the order constitutes discrimination against unvaccinated persons and that they have opted for defying this mandate. Other than individuals asserting their right to freedom, these businesses are mostly concerned about the impact on their businesses. While the latter may have genuine concerns about financial repercussions, it is a travesty of the human combat against the virus that public narratives have undergone slipshod articulation around issues of liberty and non-discrimination.
It is ironical that while a section of society is loath to follow public health directives on account of supposed curtailment of individual liberty (celebrating individualism over collectivism), it gladly accepts government handouts during the pandemic, without extending the similar logic to considering social assistance as inimical to individual self-reliance. The crux of the issue under discussion is not about consideration for or indifference to the interests of communities that are especially vulnerable to restrictions. The centerpiece of the debate is whether individual liberty overrides individual responsibility toward public health, especially when fighting off communicable diseases requires foregoing the comfort zone. Can compliance with precautionary health measures be on an equal footing to compliance with safe driving requirements such as wearing the seat belt? Kyla Lee, a Vancouver lawyer, observes, “Your Charter Rights aren’t absolute. Like at any time the government has the ability to limit your Charter rights…That can include restrictions on your rights to access certain things, restrictions on your rights to go certain places, restrictions on your bodily integrity rights.” Even if collective conscience or civic obligation is not brought into picture, the sheer demand of triumphing over the catastrophe necessitates compliance with public health directives.
So far as skepticism about efficacy of vaccines is concerned, it is incumbent on public health authorities to allay public concerns through timely and effective communication.
The COVID-19 pandemic has unraveled issues pertaining to government-citizen trust and interpretations of individual liberty and limits of state control in liberal democracies. It is also an opportunity for public policy makers and citizen activists to open channels of communication based on understanding and solidarity at a time when further divisions will likely render the common scourge mightier.