This was sent to me by a friend and is exactly why the "Its just a mask" theory is SO much more than just a stupid mask.
1st its a mask then its every single one of our God given rights.

"Independent of the implications of a mask mandate, for which I have a great appreciation for the social responsibility/civil liberty dilemma, there are several issues that seem to be much more intrusive, fall well beyond a short-term fix, with far greater consequences than a simple mask mandate suggests.
1. An order that tells me who is allowed within the confines of my own home shakes the very foundations of privacy, property rights, and the sanctity of family. If the state is allowed to determine, for whatever reason, what I may do in the confines of my own home, then all other rights and freedoms are at risk. Even when criminal activity is suspected, the government must provide a search warrant that is specific to a particular residence and requires some level of probable cause. In this case, it is a blanket order based on the assumption that I am “guilty” until proven “innocent”. I am further troubled that once we establish and accept the idea that the government may “invade” our homes, in the name of “the public good”, that we now give away our most basic freedom to any official who claims “public good”, as defined by them, to justify increasing levels of government intrusion. Whether that intrusion would be to force a “benevolent” policy is irrelevant. That same intrusion can be used to crush dissent, violate our rights, or influence voting behavior. This order infringes on our most basic freedom…to be secure in our homes and property.
2. A “temporary”, “emergency” executive order that requires testing for all persons within a given age group, on the basis of being “hidden carriers” of a virus, suggests that it is permissible for the state to single out specific groups or demographics in the name of “public safety” as defined by the government. Further, while the exec order is short term, the testing is much longer in implementation and duration than the mask mandate itself. This seems a bit like smoke and mirrors. The government suggests there is a short term emergency in terms of bed space that needs to be alleviated now, and then orders for mandatory testing to begin long after the initial crisis period that justifies the executive “emergency”.
3. It is dangerous to suggest that government funded institutions (public schools) must comply with government testing mandates, it is even more perilous for the state to require private facilities to require testing of targeted groups. The government cannot compel a criminal suspect to submit to dna testing, and yet we can compel non-criminal students, in a private or public university, to submit to mandatory covid testing??? If this order is allowed to stand, the precedent for even greater civil liberty violations, for whichever group that the state determines to be “dangerous” will now be part of established law.
4. What is potentially the most troubling aspect of the mandate revolves around the idea of bringing in the National Guard to facilitate the testing, contact tracing and isolation (the Governors’s words, not mine) of individual groups and demographics, with little regard for the legal protection of the rights of said groups. Here again, a head of state identifies a group to be singled out, in the name of public safety, and now targets that group to be placed under the jurisdiction of the military. We’ve seen this before, in many places, with multiple excuses. Never did I think we would see it in Utah.
We can argue back and forth for the validity and/or efficacy of a temporary mask mandate. I argue with myself over the value of such a policy and I’m not sure I have a clear answer. That having been said, I have no confusion about the overreach and danger to our civil liberties posed by the other mandates put forth in the Governor’s emergency order. Whatever your opinion about masks, I would hope that we can be united in defending against the violation of our most basic rights that would be a consequence of Herbert’s unconstitutional overreach. I would like to trust that Herbert’s intentions are good, but can we say that with every leader, in every situation, that we can extend that same trust? Constitutional limits were placed on government, because the founders of our government did not trust government. However urgent the situation we are now in, however dire the consequences, men and women, for more than two hundred years have given their lives to defend the liberties that we are now being asked to surrender.
Not me, not my family…"
This was sent to me by a friend and is exactly why the "Its just a mask" theory is SO much more than just a stupid mask. 1st its a mask then its every single one of our God given rights. "Independent of the implications of a mask mandate, for which I have a great appreciation for the social responsibility/civil liberty dilemma, there are several issues that seem to be much more intrusive, fall well beyond a short-term fix, with far greater consequences than a simple mask mandate suggests. 1. An order that tells me who is allowed within the confines of my own home shakes the very foundations of privacy, property rights, and the sanctity of family. If the state is allowed to determine, for whatever reason, what I may do in the confines of my own home, then all other rights and freedoms are at risk. Even when criminal activity is suspected, the government must provide a search warrant that is specific to a particular residence and requires some level of probable cause. In this case, it is a blanket order based on the assumption that I am “guilty” until proven “innocent”. I am further troubled that once we establish and accept the idea that the government may “invade” our homes, in the name of “the public good”, that we now give away our most basic freedom to any official who claims “public good”, as defined by them, to justify increasing levels of government intrusion. Whether that intrusion would be to force a “benevolent” policy is irrelevant. That same intrusion can be used to crush dissent, violate our rights, or influence voting behavior. This order infringes on our most basic freedom…to be secure in our homes and property. 2. A “temporary”, “emergency” executive order that requires testing for all persons within a given age group, on the basis of being “hidden carriers” of a virus, suggests that it is permissible for the state to single out specific groups or demographics in the name of “public safety” as defined by the government. Further, while the exec order is short term, the testing is much longer in implementation and duration than the mask mandate itself. This seems a bit like smoke and mirrors. The government suggests there is a short term emergency in terms of bed space that needs to be alleviated now, and then orders for mandatory testing to begin long after the initial crisis period that justifies the executive “emergency”. 3. It is dangerous to suggest that government funded institutions (public schools) must comply with government testing mandates, it is even more perilous for the state to require private facilities to require testing of targeted groups. The government cannot compel a criminal suspect to submit to dna testing, and yet we can compel non-criminal students, in a private or public university, to submit to mandatory covid testing??? If this order is allowed to stand, the precedent for even greater civil liberty violations, for whichever group that the state determines to be “dangerous” will now be part of established law. 4. What is potentially the most troubling aspect of the mandate revolves around the idea of bringing in the National Guard to facilitate the testing, contact tracing and isolation (the Governors’s words, not mine) of individual groups and demographics, with little regard for the legal protection of the rights of said groups. Here again, a head of state identifies a group to be singled out, in the name of public safety, and now targets that group to be placed under the jurisdiction of the military. We’ve seen this before, in many places, with multiple excuses. Never did I think we would see it in Utah. We can argue back and forth for the validity and/or efficacy of a temporary mask mandate. I argue with myself over the value of such a policy and I’m not sure I have a clear answer. That having been said, I have no confusion about the overreach and danger to our civil liberties posed by the other mandates put forth in the Governor’s emergency order. Whatever your opinion about masks, I would hope that we can be united in defending against the violation of our most basic rights that would be a consequence of Herbert’s unconstitutional overreach. I would like to trust that Herbert’s intentions are good, but can we say that with every leader, in every situation, that we can extend that same trust? Constitutional limits were placed on government, because the founders of our government did not trust government. However urgent the situation we are now in, however dire the consequences, men and women, for more than two hundred years have given their lives to defend the liberties that we are now being asked to surrender. Not me, not my family…"
5
2 Comments 0 Shares