The Mask Wars are one of the stranger offshoots of COVID-19, but I guess existential crises will produce the unexpected. And, judging by the delight with which its soldiers post their self-recorded victories over the authoratariat on Facebook, they’re not going to end any time soon.
Yesterday’s battleground was a Victorian outlet of Bunnings. Iconic, certainly, but not usually regarded as the birthplace of liberty. Anyway, a freedom warrior was on high alert as she arrived, proceeding to film her demands to be allowed in, against the objections of three (masked) members of Bunnings’ staff.
The practical problem was that our protagonist (I think I agree that we should be dropping the “Karen” thing, so let’s call her the neutral “Q”) wished to gain entry to Bunnings but did not wish to wear a mask, as mandated currently by Victorian law.
Q had three legal arguments which she had been workshopping with Wikipedia and her Facebook friends: the manager of Bunnings has no legal authority to make her wear a mask; the “1948 Charter of Human Rights”; and discrimination against her as a “living woman”.
It is true that the Victorian public health order which, since last Thursday, has made it an offence to not wear a face mask when outside one’s home in Melbourne, does not empower the staff of hardware retail stores to enforce the law. Q was absolutely right on this score.
Mind you, the Bunnings manager at no point suggested that she did think she’d been invested with police powers; the only thing she was keen for Q to understand was that she wouldn’t be allowed in if she wasn’t wearing a mask. We’ll come back to that.
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), presumably what Q was invoking as her legal authority for refusing to comply with the public health order, was made at the United Nations and signed up to by Australia. As is well known, it was a direct response to the horrors that unsuspecting shoppers had been experiencing at hardware stores between 1933-1945. It was either that or the Holocaust; sometimes it’s hard to keep track of these things.
Q obviously had a great point here; it would certainly be possible, among the 30 articles of the UDHR, to strangle the language sufficiently to extend its statement of human rights over an entitlement to not cover one’s face if one chooses not to. But to do so would require a deep misinterpretation of the UDHR.
More importantly, the UDHR is not and has never been part of the law of Australia. We never imported the UDHR into our law and it has no force here whatsoever.
Finally, there is the discrimination question. Q appeared not to be aware of the law of trespass, but Bunnings was on sure ground in refusing her entry. As occupier, it has free choice as to who it allows in and on what terms. Requiring the wearing of a mask, whether or not the same is required by law, is within its power.
That right is subject to anti-discrimination law, of course. Bunnings could not, for example, place a condition of heterosexuality on entry to its stores. Q’s reference to discrimination appeared to be a claim that Bunnings was engaging in sexual discrimination, given that she kept going on about being a “living woman” with the full rights of such a being.
True, it would be unlawful if Bunnings was allowing entry only to the blokes. It’s impossible to discern anything in the mask stipulation which is gendered, however. No joy for Q there either.
Where this leaves Q is on the footpath outside Bunnings, bereft of the flanges she needed to buy, but still fully in possession of her living woman rights.
The Bunnings staff will need therapy, but we should all thank God for the freedom warriors among us, preserving our non-existent rights in the cause of their grand delusions. So brave.
You do “Karen” or “Q” a disservice by consigning her to the nothingness of neutrality. Clearly she wants anything but that. She wants a headline not just a one second wonder or flash in the pan so let’s first of all try to find a more appropriate nom de plume – let’s see any number come to mind, jackass, pathetic loser, and spoilt brat – my apologies to children who perhaps are too young to understand what spoilt means. No I think the best name is “It’s all about me”.
Having suitably assigned a title let’s try to work out what we are dealing with. Obviously a ‘superior’ being one for whom the normal rules do not apply, one whose own selfish wants are to be placed above the greater good of all – your typical neo-liberal, and most importantly one who with superman like powers is immune to COVID19 or better still argues that COVID19 is just a big hoax. Strange thought that is because ‘something’ is sure making a lot of people ill and dying.
But you know what the biggest joke is? This jackass expects others to put their lives and well being on the line when she becomes ill from OCVID19 to treat her or when she infects some innocent who is just trying to survive by doing the right thing. The solution is simple and harsh if she puts herself above the life and well being of others she has no right to expect others to do the same to attend to her if she becomes ill.
Perhaps at some point in her pointless life this jackass will realize that this is about life and death not some petty game of whose rights hold sway.
I have to agree with you, but I fear our analysis of the situation and her reaction is irreconcilable with her view of the world. I can only. add that she is aping American social media and is looking for approbation from her peers. But I’m still at a loss.
Where was she when seat belts became mandatory? Or when cycle helmets became mandatory? I don’t see any. qualitative difference between the three issue, but clearly she does.
Yes- we need a vaccine against catching the US social media based grandstanding for human rights. It might have been better if they had waited until she got to the checkout so she could throw her purchases all over the floor.
Rights are offset by responsibilities. Thus, to oversimplify, while you usually have a right to go around not covering your face, you also have responsibilities to comply during times of a public health crisis…
There is no point looking for a rational explanation because ppl are motivated by emotions. Changing hearts & minds means developing an alternative narrative that appeals emotionally to ppl.
So maybe these people should be called “Mimis”, since for them, it’s all about me, me!
I agree calling them Karen is unfair to sane Karens.
I just can’t believe we haven’t christened these home grown nutters Qazza
The “living woman” spiel is a straight give-away that she is either a “sovereign citizen” or read from their playbook. Either way, it’s idiotic.
The US consider the “Sovereign Citizen movement” to be their greatest threat to national security and a risk for home ground terrorist attacks.
Perhaps the MeMe’s of this pandemic should be managed under the terrorism acts.
One thing that has baffled me is the government’s refusal to push for elimination rather than suppression – a few weeks of pain in exchange for a rapid return to relative normalcy. Perhaps the sheer number of people in our population not taking it seriously is why we could never achieve elimination. Too much entitled stupidity.
The consensus seems to be that it’s not possible. As the primary vector at the moment is emergency services workers (in aged care, food production), presumably shutting down everything but emergency services would be ineffective.
For the government to push hard for elimination Kel, would require them to assist everybody equally and reasonably generously – their generosity has never extended that far and never will.
Here’s a wild thought – what if there IS another vector/mode of transmission other than contaminated surfaces or person-to-person?
Ask the experts but be prepared for major waffle, equivocation & obfuscation.
The simple truth is unknown.
You’re right, it *is* a wild thought. Now’s the time for evidence-based policy, not speculative conjecture. Go off the best science we have at the time, and revise when better science in.
Leave the science to the scientists. Anything less and we might as well join the nutters ranting about legal rights to Bunnings employees.
You could get complete eradication by sterilizing the whole planet with nuclear bombs. There, no covid any more. Anywhere. Not a good idea? For sure, because the “collateral damage” would outweigh any benefit. So something less radical is called for – accepting a little less benefit in exchange for a lot less harm.
Our current measures cause a lot of harm. So far, all we have achieved is delaying the seemingly inevitable – don’t hold your breath for a vaccine arriving in time to make a big difference. The way the second wave is now going through Europe makes this very obvious.
You can continue that thought process of weighing the risks vs the benefits, and eventually you will come to the conclusion that the greatest benefit with least harm can be had by a modified Swedish approach with focus (and allocated copious resources) to protect the vulnerable minority very well in an inclusive non-discriminatory way. With that approach, we could probably avert the greatest loss of life years with the least collateral damage, the “sweet spot” of any health intervention
The Swedish approach didn’t even work in Sweden, which had a similar economic downturn to its neighbours but with a much higher death rate. We could at least look at the nations that appear to be successful…
The Swedish approach worked well EXCEPT for a very high and preventable death toll in nursing homes. Their overall per capita death toll is well below that in Belgium, UK, Spain, Italy, Andorra, and a few others – suggesting that you can achieve better results than some locked down countries without drastic measures.
The Swedish economy is not only highly export dependent, but also supply chain dependent. Hence their GDP suffered a lot through damage to their large corporates. The price to pay for being tied in tightly into a global economy and trading system.
Little damage however happened to their small business, and their excellent social system has mitigated the damage to average citizens very well too. They also have a lot less other collateral damage, eg suicides, mental health issues, domestic violence, missed preventive medicine, missed urgent medical treatment and so forth.
Which nation will be more successful than others will only become obvious many years after covid-19 ceased to be an issue: when we can count the long term consequences. I know that planning ahead further than the next day is not an Australian thing, but …
Look at their death rate per million, then look at Germany, then press reset.
In the same area, there is Finland to the east, Denmark to the south, and Norway to the west. All of which are of similar size and similar socio-economic make-up, yet haven’t suffered anywhere near as much as Sweden has. So why does the Swedish approach keep getting touted as where we should be headed? Yes, it hasn’t suffered as much as *some* countries, but it has suffered a lot more than its similarly situated neighbours without any gain to do so.
I honestly don’t get why Sweden is being touted as the approach to take, when there are so many countries doing better than it. Why not Norway or Finland? Why not New Zealand or Japan? What’s so special about Sweden that we should prefer it despite it being less successful than other countries?
In the same area, there is Finland to the east, Denmark to the south, and Norway to the west. All of which are of similar size and similar socio-economic make-up, yet haven’t suffered anywhere near as much as Sweden has. So why does the Swedish approach keep getting touted as where we should be headed? Yes, it hasn’t suffered as much as *some* countries, but it has suffered a lot more than its similarly situated neighbours without any gain to do so.
I honestly don’t get why Sweden is being touted as the approach to take, when there are so many countries doing better than it. Why not Norway or Finland? Why not New Zealand or Japan? What’s so special about Sweden that we should prefer it despite it being less successful than other countries?
Sweden’s COVID-19 death rate is 564 per million. Norway’s is 47, Finland’s is 59, Denmark’s 106. Germany’s is aroung 109.
By comparison, Italy’s COVID-19 death rate is 580 per million, while the UK is at 674 and Spain is at 608. Belgium seems to be an outlier, with 847 deaths per million.
Of course, Italy was the first place outside Wuhan that was really hit hard. And Italy – like Spain and the UK – took weeks, while infection rates were spiralling, before they implemented lockdown measures…
I think ‘delaying the inevitable’ is not such a bad outcome. I suppose death is inevitable, and choosing to live is just ‘delaying the inevitable’. Each to their own I suppose.
The Swedish example is definitely one we can learn from, that’s for sure; it’s a lesson in how not to respond to a pandemic; exceedingly bad health and death outcomes, & a stuffed economy like the rest of us to boot! The only way I think one can rationally think the Swedish approach is if you are a supporter of eugenics, or given the death rate in their aged cohort, you support age demographic changes…. not much of a stretch to mandatory euthanasia for anyone over 70, & not that dissimilar from the ‘work for the aged pension’ proposal being worked on by Coalition to ensure cheap farm labour.
Kell, I think you need to read ‘suppression’ as compromise wording to enable Scotty from Marketing To have an ‘announceable’. The COAG defined ‘suppression’ as being ‘no community transmission’. This would mean the only cases are those in travellers in quarantine (except the significant number of those exempted from quarantine). Which means effectively elimination. It seems to me the Premiers got elimination, but let ScuMo announce ‘suppression’.
I really don’t think we should humor these poor dingbats. She’s obviously a legend in her own mind. Personally I don’t think these people should leave the house – ever. They’re just too stupid .
Perhaps the “so brave” was a tad sarcastic. After all, if she were willing to refuse to follow speed limits when driving, we would say she was foolhardy, in that she was facing danger of injury or death for no good reason whatever, except joining some American tribes venting about their all so precious “freedom”. Following the speed limit reduces but does not eliminate the risk of causing injury or death to yourself or others on the road. That limit allows us to be brave rather than foolhardy behind the wheel. Wearing a mask significantly reduces the risk of infecting others or having others infect you with Covid-19, which carries a significant risk of death or disability. It is now prescribed in Victoria, just as the speed limit is, because too many Victorians are transmitting COVID-19. It would be foolhardy not to wear one in public. The woman, Q, just gives us all a demonstration of how ideology can get people to do foolhardy, daft things.