by J. Pharoah Doss, For New Pittsburgh Courier
After U.S. governors closed non-essential businesses and issued stay-at-home orders due to the COVID-19 health crisis, I anticipated a debate over the legality of the restrictions. Legal minds on the right insisted the governors exceeded their authority. Legal minds on the left maintained, during an emergency, that the governors were allowed to enact strict measures for public safety. Legal scholars, on the other hand, admitted the governors were tiptoeing through a legal minefield.
Between March 23 and April 7, 42 states shut down.
A week later, Michigan’s Democratic governor issued additional social distancing restrictions that were labeled the strictest in the nation. That ignited a day of protest called “Operation Gridlock.” Participants drove their vehicles around the state capital and honked their horns so the governor could hear their disapproval. Organizers asked all participants to remain in their vehicles, but once the streets were jammed with traffic, protesters got out of their vehicles and congregated. That violated the social distancing guidelines of remaining six feet apart in public. There was also a group of men with rifles outside the state capital. These men called themselves the Michigan Liberty Militia and their spokesperson said the militia was there to make sure everyone had a right to peacefully assemble.
This started a chain reaction of protests in Minnesota, Maryland, California, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky. President Trump tweeted encouragement to those protesting against Democratic governors. The following week the capitals of Maine and Pennsylvania had to host their own disgruntled “anti-quarantine” demonstrators. These protesters didn’t wear facemasks, nor did they comply with social distancing guidelines. A statement released by a group called Pennsylvania Against Excessive Quarantine said, “Government mandating sick people to stay at home is called quarantine. However, the government mandating healthy citizens to stay home, forcing businesses and churches to close is called tyranny.”
The distinct groups that planned these demonstrations claimed they were not affiliated with any political campaign or party, and there was no state-by-state coordination among the groups, they were united by “the spirit” of liberty.
America has a grand tradition of protesting against injustice and abuses of power, but sometimes protesters conflate the right to protest with being on the right side of the dispute. These protesters disagreed with the necessity of the shutdown orders, then accused the governors of tyranny to justify protesting against injustice. But no injustice was perpetrated by the governors. The governors didn’t abuse their powers by shutting down their states to prevent the spread of a novel virus. The governors would have been negligent if they didn’t act accordingly. At least the demonstrators in Michigan were protesting the necessity of additional restrictions. They felt the governor went too far and expressed their sentiments by honking their horns. But the moment they exited their vehicles and violated the social distancing guidelines their protest turned into an act of civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is not complying with an immoral law to expose its injustice. Not complying with social distancing orders in the middle of a pandemic didn’t expose the immorality of social distancing or anything else, but it did expose the protesters to COVID-19 and their lack of concern for possibly infecting their fellow citizens.
If that’s “the spirit” of liberty, then liberty is mean-spirited.
About Post Author
