I really don't get this 'precedent being set' argument. I do agree that these extraordinary powers being granted to governments should have a due date build into the law as to make clear that this is a temporary measure for an extraordinary situation. Unfortunately, in many places, that's not the case. In my view, extraordinary situations do however require and justify extraordinary measures. You didn't hear people during WWII saying they were terrified of precedents being set by the government forcing blackouts and curfews on them? It was understood that that extraordinary situation required extraordinary measures and nobody expected governments to continue those measures after the imminent danger had passed because some precedent was set.
People are rioting all over the world in the middle of a pandemic because they have to stay indoors a bit, and life is being made a bit more difficult if you don't want to get a shot. What do you seriously think the response will be if those types of measures would continue once the pandemic has passed?
People are rioting all over the world in the middle of a pandemic because they have to stay indoors a bit, and life is being made a bit more difficult if you don't want to get a shot. What do you seriously think the response will be if those types of measures would continue once the pandemic has passed?
reply