Statement on mask mandates

STATEMENT ON MASK MANDATES

QCCL has always accepted that the public health emergency we face can justify restrictions on civil liberties. However, QCCL has always maintained that those restrictions need to respect basic rights and liberties. Therefore we have never accepted the proposition that the government should do whatever the Chief Health Officer says.

QCCL President Michael Cope said “When it comes to masks QCCL accepts the evidence that masks can, in appropriate circumstances, reduce the spread to the COVID19 virus and has no difficulty with governments urging the voluntary use of them. However, we oppose as a disproportionate restriction on civil liberties an order that mandates the wearing of masks at all times outside a person’s home.”

“It has been said that wearing a mask does not infringe any right and is no worse than mandatory seat belt laws. We don't agree. Forcing someone to wear a seatbelt does not restrict any fundamental right or liberty. But wearing a mask interferes with the most basic human right, the right to communicate.”

That masks interfere with basic human communication is demonstrated eloquently by the fact that no one on TV wears a mask when they speak .

In addition to interfering with everyday communication, we must remember that one sixth of the population has hearing difficulties.

Whilst the mask mandate provides exemptions for communication with the deaf or hard of hearing, they are not very practical in everyday situations where the fact of hearing difficulty may not be known. This could be result in serious harm in an emergency. Nor do they address the general restriction on the capacity to communicate.

“It is said that these measures are justified by the precautionary principle. However, this principle does not sit well with individual liberty. It puts pressure on officials to take steps in the absence of clear evidence and gives permission for arbitrary decisions. Rather than balancing risk against liberty, the effect of this principle is that liberty is what you have left after all possible precautions have been taken. In effect it sets the value of liberty at naught before balancing commences.”

As well as these issues of principle, there are practical issues:
1. There is clear evidence the risk of transmission outdoors is much lower than indoors
2. There is a real concern that wearing masks will lead to complacency and a reduction in adherence to other measures such as social distancing
3. Most people do not know how to wear masks properly and the longer a person wears them, the more likely people are to touch their mask and increase the risk of transmission by infecting surfaces and touching their eyes

These latter two points are also relevant to those who would argue that if we don’t mandate masks we will have more or longer lockdowns.

In any event our position is that, during the period of the COVID emergency a mask mandate which appropriately balances the various issues would be the following:

1. limited to making mask wearing mandatory to situations where staff are medical or other essential services and for members of the public when accessing these essential services, including public transport, medical facilities, supermarkets and the like.

2. Provide for masks to be subsidised by the state so that they are ubiquitously accessible and readily available for those who want them.

“The current mandate goes beyond these guidelines. We would prefer a more limited mandate such as that announced in Victoria on 14/1/21 where masks will be mandatory on flights, public transport, taxis and ride sharing vehicles, supermarkets and big indoor shopping centres. But we accept that this mandate is generally speaking an appropriate balancing of the need to protect the community and respecting our basic interests and fundamental rights and liberties,” said Mr Cope

14 January 2021