When compared to the controversies of excess deaths, accusations of manslaughter, life changing vaccine injuries and the inhumanity of lockdowns, the issue of mask mandates may seem like a relative triviality. If they helped ‘stop the spread’ then great, and if not—what did we really lose by trying? 

The deeper question raised by mandates however, is at what point is it acceptable for one group of people to impose medical interventions upon others? Is it after a certain amount of scientific evidence of efficacy has accumulated? Is it when a certain level of popular consent is attained? Can it only be done after a thorough study of potential harms? And what about the very nature of mandates, to what extent do any unintended and adverse effects of mandating behaviour need to be taken into account?

This raises the further question: if mandates turn out to have a counterproductive or even harmful effect, what sanction should fall upon those who imposed them?

Read the full essay here: