This methodical elimination of our freedom started out gradual, imperceptible, like a big cat stalking its prey. But the people of Alberta must be commended; their intellect and cautious distrust of government is giving us a fighting chance. We’re not stupid. We recognize what’s going on. The cat’s camouflage of conservatism, compromised by his government’s response to Covid, has betrayed him.
Yesterday, we watched with stern, yet unsurprised faces, as we listened to Premier Kenney announce the province’s new restrictions.* Insinuated throughout his speech, as has been his tone for many months, was the implication, “these restrictions are right because they’re safe.” I think that’s wrong. He has it backwards, and it threatens the rule of law. The proper understanding of justice and safety is: A law is not just if it promotes safety; a law only promotes safety if it’s just.
But suppose we say that. What happens if we argue that “just because an expert says that x should be law because it guarantees safety, doesn’t automatically make it just.”? What are our consequences? We are slandered, ruthlessly, by politicians, radical leftists, influencers, and public intellectuals.
For example, Jason Kenney said, to those who enjoyed the Bowden Rodeo, “Not only are gatherings like this a threat to public health, they are a slap in the face to everybody who is observing the rules to keep themselves and their fellow Albertans safe.”**
We are positive Rachel Notley, Justin Trudeau, and the hyenas of media share his sentiment.
But it’s a tired accusation that has no validity. Are there any who are seriously going to believe that family and friends who want to live as free individuals are criminals deserving of homicide? We pray not. But in case there are some, perhaps a politician in Calgary,*` who think so, let us mount a defence explaining why we believe what we do.
1. The Old
Our present concern, in fact, is not the efficacy, or lack thereof, of Kenney’s everlasting restrictions with regards to Covid, no. We are weary and worried about his government’s blitz to usher in a new “Humanitarian Age of Safety.”*
We know that a law is just if it’s morally right. But how do we determine what “morally right” is? Subjectivism is a poison that ruins society. If law is subjective, then we have no rock upon which we can confidently stand and say, “What Herr Hitler did was wicked,” or “The persecution Domitian inflicted was cruel.” “Right” and “wrong” become meaningless. On the contrary, law must be objective. There must be a standard, not fashioned by humans who are all of us equal in the eyes of God.
That standard is Scripture (Psalms 1:2-3). The Lord God, the Objective Judge, permitted us knowledge of His Law at Sinai (Exodus 20:1-21) and in Christ (Matthew 5:17) that we might distinguish right from wrong (Acts 10:15). If the Word of God commands something, it’s just. If He forbids something else, it’s unjust. Someone might think, “It’s right to murder.” but we know he’s absolutely wrong because the Scripture objectively declares it so (Exodus 20:13).
2. The New
But some have become enlightened. Our society is modernized and on the path of progress. Ideas from antiquity like “objective justice” and “classical morality” are outdated (are they?). Now, we are living in an age of safety. The repercussions are dire.
3. The Consequences
Our contention with Premier Kenney crushing our freedom in the name of health is that it violates the ancient but beautifully just principle of giving to a man what he deserves as a product of being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27); in this case, liberty. Dr. Hinshaw and Jason Kenney rule we must abide by these restrictions because it deters the virus, but is it justified? Have they first asked themselves if their new laws are morally right?
The problem is, with their practiced ideology, they are unable to answer. The deviousness of the duo’s Humanitarian Theory of Law, that is, “helping us by harming us,” is the newspeak that escorts it. Influencers and legislators have perverted the distinction and formed an unnatural union between science and morality so that what is safe (determined by science) means what is just (determined by morality).
Is that a scientific assumption or a moral one? Can their modern belief, “what ensures safety is what’s right,” be proven in a lab? Or is that perhaps an appeal to morality apart from “the science?” It doesn’t matter—the courts are currently allowing the government to delay producing any scientific evidence for their lockdowns anyway.*
Now we see the deadly danger of it all. We can plead, “Please! We want to be with friends and family. The horrible and terrifying monster of depression, aggravated by loneliness and isolation, chokes us like a boa constrictor. We are locked inside our homes. Nobody looks at anyone anymore. We go outside, and everyone is rife with anxiety, and a nervous tension electrifies the air. We miss not living in fear every day. This is wrong!”
But under the humanitarian theory, how do we know it’s wrong? We don’t. Who can determine what’s scientific, and therefore what’s moral and just? Only experts. Experts in the fields of pulmonology, virology, and statistical regression. Thus, an elite oligarchy, a careful and chosen few like Dr. Hinshaw, have consumed an unhealthy power, unjustly justified by their expertise, and are now legislating Alberta’s laws.
So when we petition Premier Kenney or Dr. Hinshaw, “stop with these restrictions! They are unjust, immoral, and we want to live our lives!” What is their reply?
“Ah, my dear citizen. This is no longer about morality. It’s about safety. What’s safe is what’s right. This is not longer a question of your rights or your freedom at all. Forget about them. Besides, you are only teachers, farmers, homemakers, loggers, and small-business owners. Who are you to question our authority on epidemiology?”
In fact, something like that happened yesterday during Jason Kenney’s “question and answer” as he explained to us why Texas is not a lockdown model to follow—even though their science is clear.**
Therefore, we can no longer criticize Covid legislation on the grounds that we are free men because amalgamating science and morality means only experts possess the authority to make moral decisions, as they are the only ones well-versed enough in the scientific literature.
Let us tremble if we understand where this path, if we continue on it, leads. Soon the compassionate comrade will ensure that our refusal to abide by these restrictions and agree with these lockdowns is not a crime, but a mental disease. If that comes to pass, and unless we champion our freedom it’s coming to pass, you and I might vanish overnight and wake up isolated, strapped to a table, in a Canadian Institution for the Ideologically Unsound because an expert determines that we and our beliefs are unsafe for others.
Carry on, then! In the face of fines or punishment, let us go on living our lives as the Lord Jesus intended—free. For to be forced to withhold interaction with other humans, to be locked down and reshaped after some arbitrary notion of normal, to know this process will never end until every man, woman, and child, is remade in the image of Dr. Hinshaw, Minister Shandro, and Premier Kenney, is persecution.
Intro
*Watch Premier Kenney's announcement here
** Read his statement here
*` Read about the Calgary Councillor's suggestion here
The Old
*For a comprehensive analysis of Lewis' "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment," from which the theme of this article was taken, see here
The Consequences
* See the JCCF's report here
** Watch Jason Kenney's question and answer here
If you’d like to stay informed about the Christian's perspective of current events, or if you’d like to join our growing community of members who love truth, subscribe here for free!