Doctor Paul Jackson
Mississauga Ontario
12 December 2020
Mayor Bonnie Crombie
City Hall
300 City Centre Drive
Mississauga Ontario
L5B 3C1
Mayor Bonnie Crombie,
The City of Mississauga declared a state of emergency on 23 March 2020 in support of the efforts of the province and region of Peel to “contain” the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On the recommendation of the medical officer of health for the region of Peel, the City passed legislation mandating face masks on 8 July 2020 under the authority of the Municipality Act, 2001, which authorizes municipalities to pass by-laws with respect to the health, safety, and well-being of persons. By-law 0169-2020 also cites, in justification, recommendations from the provincial and federal governments in favour of mask mandates. (Recommendations do not have the force of law.)
In this letter, I will not address the primary question of whether SARS-CoV-2 actually represents a threat to the health, safety, and well-being of Mississaugans, requiring the declaration of a state of emergency, the mandating of face masks, and other measures. Neither will I address the scientific foundations upon which claims to knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 rest. And, while the identification, through PCR testing, of that virus is at the heart of the most relevant studies cited hereafter, I will limit my attention to the question of whether face masks promote the health, safety, and well-being of Mississaugans, which would be required under the Municipality Act of 2001 to justify the creation of By-law 0169-2020. In other words, I will accept the official claims regarding the existence of a unique virus called SARS-CoV-2, identifiable through PCR testing, as the causative agent of the disease called COVID-19.
By-law 0169-2020 includes no rationale as justification beyond the authority of other levels of government, the declaration of a state of emergency, and the recommendation of Peel’s public-health officer. How the public-health officer arrived at his recommendation has not been disclosed. We do not know if the city council balanced his advice with the broader effects of a mask mandate. It appears that the only justification for masking is its presumed effect of slowing of the spread of COVID-19. However, we will see that the best available science concludes that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit SARS-CoV-2. In that case, what arguments could justify a law mandating that healthy people wear masks? If SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted exclusively by those suffering from an infection, then they could simply isolate themselves during the infectious period, as people have always done during the flu season. Mask-wearing cannot be justified on the basis that healthy people put others at risk, since the available evidence shows that they do not. By-law 0169-2020, then, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in arbitrarily depriving Mississaugans of life, liberty, and security of the person.
The face-mask mandate rests upon several assumptions, either stated or implied: that masks can effectively block the spread of SARS-CoV-2; that asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is widespread (or even possible); and that face masks do not compromise the health, safety, and well-being of Mississaugans. In what follows, I will show that none of those assumptions are true. Consequently, all politicians and public servants responsible for the mask mandate must either answer the questions that arise throughout this exegesis or rescind By-law 0169-2020 before further harm is inflicted on Mississaugans.
One of the justifications for By-law 0169-2020 is the fact that health authorities at the provincial level have recommended that “persons wear face coverings in public where physical distancing cannot be maintained.” Is that recommendation well-founded? What experience with the transmission of influenza-like illnesses did the Ontario government have at the time COVID appeared?
Prior to the concern over COVID-19 in the winter of 2020, the province of Ontario had considerable experience adjudicating evidence regarding the value of the use of face masks for the control of respiratory infections. Beginning in 2014, the Sault Area Hospital attempted to mandate facemasks for health-care workers who had not received the annual influenza vaccine, the so-called Vaccine or Mask (VOM) policy. Until 2020, almost all published research on the effectiveness of face masks at impeding the transmission of influenza-like illnesses was conducted in hospital settings rather than public spaces. Hospital and long-term-care patients have more vulnerable immune systems than the general public and so the issue is more pressing there.
In the Sault Area Hospital, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) grieved that policy and the case went to an arbitration hearing presided over by James K. A. Hayes. After hearing experts representing both the Nurses and the Hospital, he concluded that there was scant scientific evidence supporting the VOM policy and upheld the grievance of the ONA (representing 60,000 nurses):
“On the merits, I sustain the core of the Union position. I find that the Policy was introduced at SAH [Sault Area Hospital] for the purpose of driving up vaccination rates. I also find that the weight of scientific evidence said to support the VOM Policy on patient safety grounds is insufficient to warrant the imposition of a mask-wearing requirement for up to six months every year. Absent adequate support for the freestanding patient safety purpose alleged, I conclude that the Policy operates to coerce influenza immunization and, thereby, undermines the collective agreement right of employees to refuse vaccination. On all of the evidence, and for the reasons canvassed at length in this Award, I conclude that the VOM Policy is unreasonable.”
The Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) persisted in its attempt to impose a Vaccine or Mask strategy on hospitals not covered by the Hayes Arbitration. Consequently, a second hearing was undertaken, based at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, in which the OHA agreed to respect the decision throughout the province. Both the ONA and OHA agreed that the scientific evidence needed to be heard and adjudicated. That took place over the course of a number of sessions between 2016 and 2018 before Arbitrator William Kaplan.
The VOM policy had been devised by the Toronto Area Health Sciences Network (TAHSN), composed of thirteen Toronto-area teaching hospitals. They argued:
“There are several important infection control measures that help to prevent influenza transmission. These include: restricting HCWs with symptoms from attending the hospital, good hand hygiene practices, influenza vaccination, cough etiquette, early identification and management of infected patients, and appropriate outbreak management including prompt use of anti-viral medications for unvaccinated HCWs and exposed patients. The wearing of face masks can serve as a method of source control of infected HCWs who may or may not have symptoms. Masks may also prevent unvaccinated HCWs from as yet unrecognized infected patients or visitors. While all these measures are valuable and should be part of a comprehensive prevention program, vaccination remains the cornerstone of efforts to control influenza transmission.”
The TAHSN recommended that a VOM policy be adopted to protect patients from the transmission of influenza from asymptomatic, unvaccinated health-care workers to patients. That policy was formulated in the admitted absence of evidence that masks prevent the asymptomatic transmission of influenza. Arbitrator Kaplan judged the evidence put forward in support of that masking mandate to be “insufficient, inadequate, and completely unpersuasive.”
Kaplan judged the tribunal to have “been exceptionally well informed by a thoroughly argued case that included the evidence of internationally recognized experts, or persons with subject matter expertise.”
The following quotes, taken from Arbitrator Kaplan’s judgement, address the issue of the asymptomatic transmission of viral infections:
“There is no shortage of questions requiring answers, but two of the principal ones are the extent to which unvaccinated HCWs [health-care workers] pose a risk to patients – a risk of transmitting influenza especially when they are asymptomatic – and whether masking appreciably reduces that risk. …
“If unvaccinated HCWs are infecting patients, and if wearing a surgical or procedural mask prevents the spread of influenza – meaning it prevents serious illness and death – that is, by any objective standard, a reasonable precaution even if the evidence is not all in. However, if the vaccination itself is of questionable utility, and if the masks are of limited value in preventing transmission of influenza by asymptomatic HCWs (symptomatic HCWS should not be at work), then the entire enterprise is put into question even if the motive underlying the policy is completely salutary. …
“… the question to be answered is whether the evidence supports the conclusion that the use of surgical or procedural masks, worn by unvaccinated HCWs for some or all of the flu season, actually results in reduction of harm to patients? Does it prevent the transmission of illness? Does it save lives? …
“If, on the other hand, the evidence indicated that the policy did not achieve this objective, and if the science said to support it was unsound at best, then the reasonableness of the policy would be appropriately called into question.
“This case was tried over multiple hearing days over three calendar years. The evidentiary record is extensive: Volumes of scientific articles – cluster randomized controlled trials (hereafter “cRCTs”), observational studies, summaries, critiques, literature reviews, meta-analyses, commentaries, etc. and numerous expert reports, more than one hundred and fifty exhibits and thousands of pages of transcript. Two [Ontario Nurses] Association members also testified about the impact of the VOM policy on them: their experience of being compelled to don a mask for days, weeks and months on end. …
“In a related point, the Association argued that the evidence establishing asymptomatic transmission – that is transmission by HCWs when shedding virus either prior to symptom onset or when asymptomatically infected – was absent. The risk, based on the evidence, the Association argued, was theoretical or minimal and insufficient to justify the VOM policy on a reasonableness standard. …
“Masking is the acknowledged and accepted standard of care when tending to an infected patient, but the expert evidence indicates that it is of limited value to anyone as a method of source control, particularly in case of an asymptomatic HCW. The fact that there is some evidence, for example, that masking can prevent transmission of large droplets – unlikely in asymptomatic transmission – is not enough to confer reasonableness on the policy. Little evidence – negligible evidence – cannot serve as the justification for this policy, all things considered … The “ask” is significant, but the benefit is so limited that the former cannot balance the latter. Independent of any other finding in this award, the VOM policy fails on a reasonableness basis for these reasons alone. …
“As Dr. Eleni Patrozou concluded following her systemic review: “Based on the available literature, we found that there is scant, if any, evidence that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals play an important role in influenza transmission.” As Dr. De Serres wrote, “The evidence that pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic infections contribute substantially to influenza transmission remains scant.” …
“On balance, I am persuaded by the evidence and accept the conclusion of the experts that there is, indeed, scant evidence of asymptomatic nosocomial [hospital-based] influenza transmission. It is unlikely to be of clinical significance. Accordingly, requiring unvaccinated HCWs to wear surgical or procedural masks – notwithstanding the inherent illogicality of it all – is unreasonable, and so, therefore, is the policy compelling it.”
British Columbia had adopted a Vaccination or Mask policy for their health-care workers in 2012 and, according to data from their on-going surveillance of influenza rates in hospitals and long-term-care facilities, it appeared to have had no positive impact. (British Columbia Influenza Surveillance Bulletin, 2014-15, No. 21, page 8.) In fact, the number of laboratory-confirmed outbreaks of influenza sky-rocketed during the 2014-2015 season.
In analyzing the value of face masks in controlling the spread of a contagion, source control must be distinguished from infection. Do face masks protect the wearer from catching an infection or do they prevent an infected person from spreading the disease (source control)? Do they accomplish both goals? In his judgement, Kaplan concluded that there was no scientific evidence that masks could reliably be used as either source control or to block infection. The default position was that which had been in use in living memory: symptomatic people should remain at home during the period of their illness and everyone should adhere to the basic principles of good hygiene to limit the spread of pathogens.
We will return to the issue of the asymptomatic transmission of viruses in light of research carried out during the COVID-19 event and published in 2020. First, what else did Ontario Health have at its disposal to formulate the mandatory mask recommendation? How else might the province have influenced the enactment of By-law 0169-202?
Ontario Health generates documents that survey the published and unpublished scientific literature, as well as media reports, in order to inform authorities as to the state of the world’s collective knowledge regarding COVID-19. “COVID-19 – What We Know So Far About … Wearing Masks in Public” was published in June 2020 (fourteen pages) and “Wearing Masks in Public and COVID-19 – What We Know So Far” appeared in September 2020 (essentially reproducing the June report with two extra pages, incorporating more recent source material).
The documents survey studies published between 2000 and 2020. They are largely annotated bibliographies by the unnamed authors who offer their recommendations to policy makers in the first section, called “Key Points.” These recommendations are presumably conclusions based on the literature cited in the rest of the report. In their brief summaries of the publications, the researchers often judge the quality and, therefore, value of the literature they survey. This is largely the same material that was presented by the Ontario Hospital Association to Arbitrators Hayes and Kaplan up until 2018. As we have seen, those adjudicators were unpersuaded by the literature that masks could either arrest transmission or protect wearers from influenza viruses.
In the “What We Know So Far” documents, the anonymous authors construct no arguments to validate their policy recommendations. They present their recommendations, fait accompli, followed by pages of brief summaries of media reports, editorials, as well as observational and controlled trials of variable quality. Which studies, or opinions, they rely upon to formulate their recommendations is a mystery. (This is a trick known to intellectually-insecure graduate students and academics: instead of making a well-supported and cogent argument, they load the footnotes with citations in an attempt to overwhelm and intimidate any critical reader from challenging their assertions.) Readers of “What We Know So Far” documents could spend countless hours trying to piece together the arguments that might support the recommendations (called “Key Points”) from the cited material. Even so, the anonymous “What We Know So Far” authors often remark on the poor quality of the individual studies. That begs the question: how did they arrive at their recommendations?
Here are the “Key Points” (their takeaways, or conclusions) from their September 2020 document (all highlighted quotes are from the original):
“ Public mask-wearing is likely beneficial as source control when worn by persons shedding infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Mandatory public mask policies have been associated with a decrease in new COVID-19 cases compared to regions without such policies.
Studies evaluating masking in children are limited and have demonstrated variable results with respect to their effectiveness for source control. However, studies have consistently shown lower adherence, especially in younger children.
Masking to protect the wearer is unlikely to be effective in non-healthcare settings. Existing evidence demonstrates that wearing a mask within households after an illness begins is not effective at preventing secondary respiratory infections.
There is variability in the effectiveness of homemade and cloth masks. Some materials adequately filter the expulsion of viral droplets from the wearer making them theoretically suitable for source control.
There are theoretical risks of harms from public mask use including self-contamination from improper use and facial dermatitis or discomfort. Children may experience more discomfort from wearing a mask compared to adults. Though there are studies that observe subtle physiologic changes caused by N95 use, there is currently no evidence that surgical or cloth masks exacerbate respiratory diseases.”
These points are hardly an endorsement for mask mandates. The authors qualify even the possible benefits that might derive from face coverings. We don’t know who wrote these key points. We don’t know how they have arrived at these “recommendations.” Are they intended, in fact, to be recommendations? We don’t know how much weight the City of Mississauga has given these recommendations/key points. This doesn’t even rise to the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. This is an appeal to an anonymous claim, the intellectual equivalent of the following argument: “Someone in a bar – I don’t know his name or qualifications – told me that masks might possibly slow the spread of a virus, but he didn’t explain why.”
How did the Ontario researchers decide what to include in their bibliography? Some of the material is simply opinion and editorials. They might have included the following testimony, offered to the Edmonton City Council, by Doctor Hodkinson, an expert in pathology and virology and the CEO of Western Medical Assessments, a biotech company manufacturing testing protocols for COVID-19:
“Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever. Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue signaling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time.
“It’s utterly ridiculous. Seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people — I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense — seeing these people walking around like lemmings obeying without any knowledge base to put the mask on their face … Nothing could be done to stop the spread of the virus besides protecting older more vulnerable people.”
The reality is that there are no discernable criteria for inclusion in “What We Know So Far” documents. If they had included Doctor Hodkinson’s testimony to his local city council, what weight would they have given it?
While the anonymous “What We Know So Far” Ontario Health employees have included in their analyses opinion pieces and media reports, Professor Denis Rancourt, working with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, has analyzed randomized controlled trials with verified outcomes. As a PhD in particle physics, Professor Rancourt is eminently qualified to analyze the physical behaviour of nanoparticles – such as viruses measuring .1 micron. His analysis and argumentation have been a matter of public record since April 2020. Unlike the Ontario Health researchers, he has not hidden behind a wall of anonymity and, unlike public-health officials and politicians, he has welcomed public debate. Anyone can review his analysis and arguments online. His conclusion is clearly stated:
“Masks and respirators do not work.
“There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.
“Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.
“The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.”
Rancourt’s conclusions:
“No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.
“Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below). …
“In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).
“In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.”
Rancourt is a retired tenured physics professor with expertise in nanoparticles and earth and environmental science. Medical doctors, such as the region of Peel’s public health officer, are not experts in the requisite fields. It is not clear why the City of Mississauga seems to have put so much weight on that official’s recommendation. While Professor Rancourt argues – based on the available randomized controlled trials with verified outcomes – that there exists no evidence that masks inhibit the spread of viral particles, he also points out that there are other issues that Mississauga’s city council should consider. Many experts in the fields of medicine and environmental health have alerted us to these risks of mask wearing. Here are Rancourt’s precautionary concerns:
- Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
- Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
- Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerosolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
- What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
- How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
- What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?
- Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
- Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioural modification?
- What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
- Do the masks shed fibres or substances that are harmful when inhaled?
Has Mississauga City Council taken these issues into account in their mandatory face mask policy? To Professor Rancourt’s concerns, I add the following, all based on proven consequences of wearing masks:
- What effect will the diminished oxygen level have on the IQ levels of Mississauga’s school children, now that they are forced to wear masks for hours every school day?
- What effect will the diminished oxygen level, and the resultant disequilibrium of mouth bacteria, have on the dental health of Mississaugans?
- What will be the long-term health effects on employees in essential businesses, forced to wear masks for eight-hour shifts?
- Given that the Ontario Nurses Association, representing 60,000 nurses, has twice won grievances against the attempted imposition of mask mandates, how has Mississauga city council justified such measures on non-unionized employees?
- Has city council sought expert advice from the Ministry of Labour’s occupational health and safety experts?
The rationale for mandating masks seems to be based on one metric: the unsubstantiated claim that face coverings slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, a virus that is no more lethal than most seasonal influenzas. Has the city council balanced that issue with all of the other consequences of mandated masks, only some of which are listed above? Has the city council solicited other concerns of Mississaugans?
In the latest “What We Know So Far” document, the anonymous authors note that they are awaiting the result of research out of Denmark, the first randomized control trial to study the effectiveness of surgical masks in preventing infection from SARS-CoV-2. It was subsequently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on 18 November 2020: “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.”
This trial assigned 3,030 participants to wear a mask and 2,994 subjects to spend the same amount of time outdoors (at least three hours a day) without a mask over the course of one month. At the time, Denmark had no mask mandates, but general social-distancing rules were in place. The masked cohort were supplied with surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98% and were asked to replace them every eight hours. Participants were tested for antibodies and given PCR tests at the beginning and end of the trial period. The researchers concluded that masks had no statistically-significant effect on the incidence of COVID-19 infections.
Since masks were not mandated in Denmark during April and May 2020, this study tracks infection rates between masked and unmasked subjects, rather than face coverings as a method of source control. In other words, the researchers didn’t design the study to determine if wearing a mask made an infected person less infectious to others. Masks are justified on the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 is spread via droplets. The authors argue that “masks would not be effective against spread via aerosols, which might penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask. Thus, spread of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols would at least partially explain the present findings.” This was the hypothesis of Professor Denis Rancourt; it is strengthened by this study.
How could the Danish study inform Ontario’s policy towards face coverings? As the authors conclude, it shows that SARS-CoV-2 is able to penetrate masks, even when worn properly and changed frequently. So, wearing a mask does not protect you from this virus, which appears to be spread through aerosols, as the authors conclude. Is there any evidence, while counter-intuitive, that masks may stop SARS-CoV-2 at the source: from being transmitted by an infected person? We will soon be able to answer that question thanks to a major study from Wuhan , China.
Although the authors of the study do not discuss it, it is worth noting that the data reveals that, after a month, 97.9 % of the subjects who went unmasked and 98.2 % of those who were assigned face coverings showed no verifiable signs of infection from SARS-CoV-2. (Out of 4,862 participants who completed the trial, only ninety-five tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.) Recall that the trial took place in April and May of 2020. This suggests that the virus had already become endemic in Denmark by that time. There were few people left to infect and their health was not compromised by the infection.
The best available science regarding the question of the possibility of asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was published in the journal Nature Communications on 20 November 2020: “Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China.” Wuhan, a Chinese city with a population of over 10,000,000, imposed strict lockdown measures between 23 January 2020 and 8 April 2020. In the post-lockdown period, between 14 May 2020 and 1 June 2020, a nucleic acid screening programme was undertaken to determine the prevalence of the virus. All city residents over six years of age were eligible and 9,899,828 participated. The study found no new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases. The researchers then traced the 1,174 close contacts of all of those asymptomatic cases. None tested positive. The study found that the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was very low (.303 per 10,000 residents) and that asymptomatic cases were not infectious. The authors conclude, “Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2.”
As was the case in the Danish study, a notable finding in the Wuhan study is that SARS-CoV-2 had almost completely disappeared and was no longer a public-health threat a month after the lockdown measures had been lifted. Even where the virus was present in individuals, they experienced no symptoms.
The Wuhan study should finally settle the question of whether asymptomatic cases are capable of transmitting SARS-CoV-2. They are not. Why, then, does Mississauga continue to impose By-law 0169-2020? Will the City rescind that by-law in the light of the latest science? Indeed, all of the peer-reviewed science that is available to the City supports the proposition that face masks have no effect on the spread of the virus. (Face shields would be no more effective in light of this science.) Meanwhile, the by-law may be damaging the health, safety, and well-being of Mississaugans, which is the City’s responsibility under the Municipality Act of 2001.
By-law 0169-2020 is prejudicial to the health, security, and well-being of Mississaugans. However, its enforcement is even more disquieting. I alerted you on 5 November 2020 to the problem of non-compliance and the City’s apparent complacency in regard to the issue. You have not replied and the problem is even more widespread. The issue is not that Mississaugans are not wearing masks, but rather that businesses are imposing their own, more severe measures that do not recognize the exemptions under Section 11 of the by-law. Section 8 requires all public establishments (defined in the By-law as any portion of a building that is indoors and “where the public is ordinarily invited or permitted access to whether or not a fee for membership is charged for entry”) to post, at every entrance, “clearly visible signage that Persons are required to wear a Face Covering in accordance with this By-law.” That means that exemptions from wearing masks must be respected.
However, the City’s website contains the following directive:
“The owners and occupiers of public establishments have the right to set the terms for service in their own premises and to deny people entry to their establishments, but must comply with the Ontario Human Rights Code and, in some cases, the Charter.
“Both the City of Mississauga By-law and the provincial regulations include an exemption for persons who cannot wear masks for medical reasons or reason of disability and does [sic] not require the owner/operator of a public establishment to deny service to someone who is not wearing a mask for medical reasons.”
A more opaque directive would be hard to imagine. The first sentence seems to be an open invitation to the owners and occupiers of public establishments to violate By-law 0169-2020 by allowing them “to deny people entry.” Deny entry to whom? To those exempt from wearing a face-covering under By-law 0169-2020? The City claims that “in some cases” public establishments must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In what cases are they allowed to exempt themselves from the Charter? Section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Does the City regard this section as optional?
Is the City of Mississauga deliberately creating a category of citizen not protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code? Are unmasked Mississaugans now legitimate targets of oppression under this new regime? Unable to buy food? Ineligible for medical and dental services? Excluded from banking institutions? And, for residents of apartment buildings and condominiums, imprisoned in their units, since common areas are now spaces protected for masked individuals? Has the City vitiated the human-rights protections that it built into By-law 0169-2020?
With regards to the second sentence: does By-law 0169-2020 require owners and occupiers of public establishments to provide services “to someone who is not wearing a mask for medical reasons,” as they have always done? Phrased in the negative, the directive is absolutely meaningless. There are many other things – an infinity of things – that By-law 0169-2020 does not require: that persons hop on one foot, wear black trousers, shave their heads, and paint their feet. So, the by-law does “not require the owner/operator of a public establishment to deny service to someone who is not …” wearing a green overcoat. Why would it?
Why did the City pass By-law 0169-2020 only to invite those subject to it to devise their own policies in contravention of it? Does city council have such little confidence in their laws? This directive – which does not have the force of law – is a signal to all Mississaugans that we are no longer living in a land subject to the constitution and the rule of law. Even arbitrary laws such as 0169-2020, with no basis in common law or the Canadian constitution and unsupported by scientific evidence, are subject to the whims of politicians and enforcement officers.
Will Mississauga rescind By-law 0169-2020? If not, will the City justify the by-law publicly? Will the city councillors answer all of the concerns of Mississaugans?
Sincerely,
Paul Jackson, PhD