A commentary.
I am concerned about the heightened divisiveness and increasing polarization in our society.
I am a lawyer, now non-practising, having started my career almost 30 years ago. As a practising lawyer, I assisted several clients when active mandates were in place regarding COVID-19.
I have years of experience in the non-profit and social enterprise sector, and experience in law and policy reform. Currently I am focused on life coaching, assisting clients to pursue their passion and purpose in life, which I have been doing for 20 years.
My concern during the pandemic was government overreach. With no long-term studies on safety and efficacy, the vaccine mandates came in, people made hard decisions, and suffered a variety of consequences.
Some lost their jobs, their ability to travel, and their ability to see loved ones who were passing away. Some experienced damage to their health from the COVID vaccine.
There was very little room for open, rational communication with regards to risks and benefits associated with new vaccines and mandates.
Instead, widespread smearing and labelling of people who wished to maintain medical privacy and have their right to informed consent respected was common.
A kind of mob mentality, which is not conducive to the creation of good policy, dominated much of our public discourse.
Terms like “anti-vaxer,” “conspiracy theorist,” and “COVIDiot” were far too common. As far as I know, we don’t call someone who is pro-choice in the context of women’s reproductive rights “anti-baby.”
I am tired of the grade-school tactics of mudslinging and making fun of anyone with a different opinion.
These approaches are designed to bully and silence people, throwing a diverse group of people into a kind of “crazy camp,” making it difficult for them to be heard and easy for them to be scapegoated. Societal rifts and divisiveness deepened.
Leading up to the provincial election I became curious about a local candidate’s position regarding COVID era mandates, so I asked him about this.
I spoke about my experience as a lawyer seeing people medically harmed by the COVID vaccine, including being in intensive care with a serious heart issue, being on a heart monitor, and being told by their employer that they must take a further vaccine.
I spoke about my cousin who went into anaphylactic shock immediately after receiving the vaccine. As she struggled to breathe and remain conscious, the nurse who administered the COVID vaccine told her that what she was experiencing was not due to the vaccine.
It was almost impossible to get a religious or medical exemption to retain one’s job during the COVID vaccine mandate era.
It shouldn’t be the case that previously healthy people who were in intensive care due to heart issues immediately following the vaccine could not get a medical exemption.
To the degree that there is risk, there must also be choice. Clearly a new medical therapy involves risk of medical injury, so debate about risks and benefits should not be shut down.
I was also told that the issue did not fall under provincial jurisdiction, which is clearly erroneous given that the provincial health officer was responsible for setting mandates.
I shared that since there is risk associated with a new medical therapy, once it became questionable whether the COVID vaccine was very effective at reducing transmission, the coercion and bullying should have stopped, but it didn’t.
If the vaccine had been effective in reducing rates of transmission, the pandemic would have slowed considerably or ended when it was only the vaccinated who were allowed to travel etc.
The candidate brought up polio vaccines. I stated that the COVID vaccines are not like traditional vaccines.
First, there is no long-term data on COVID vaccines. Also, traditional vaccines generally prevent infection and the spread of virus. There is case law under consideration in the United States on whether COVID vaccines are medical therapies, rather than traditional vaccines.
The candidate told me he was “checking out” of the conversation, raising his hands and backing away.
I pressed him on why he was “checking out” and received no satisfactory response. He was defensive, made the conversation unnecessarily adversarial, and had no interest in hearing me, so I ended the exchange.
As a lawyer I have a duty to listen to my clients and represent them to the best of my ability.
I know that an unnecessarily adversarial approach does not serve clients. My hope is that we can avoid a repeat of government overreach, increase openness, and reduce the climate of fear that has permeated our social discourse on this issue and others.
The inability of politicians to actively listen to their constituents and have civil discourse with each other is contributing to increased divisiveness in society. All this candidate had to do was listen to the first-hand information I was sharing about how people had been seriously impacted by the COVID vaccine mandates.
He could have empathized with the humanity of the very real medical injury I was sharing with him. He could have thanked me for sharing my experience and committed to look into the issues.
Dare I imagine a world where aspiring and seasoned politicians have good listening skills, empathy, and a balanced manner of communicating?
They should be leaders and role models. Instead, they are too often modelling poor communication skills leading to more divisiveness.
We must take back our power. If we are easily polarized, we will remain caught in the throes of divide and conquer politics. We must ask ourselves whether this serves our interests.
I believe it’s time to make personal and collective choices that lead to more open-mindedness, compassion, understanding, and curiosity, or at the very least more tolerance.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
