Why We Should Oppose Mandatory Face mask Laws

Why We Should Oppose Mandatory Face mask Laws


As summer is coming up and the number of deaths from Coronavirus are going down, you would honestly think that it will be time to grasp that breath of fresh air whether it be out in the garden, out for a walk on the streets or even in the park with bigger woodlands if you’re lucky. Except, that may not be the case any longer if the pro-lockdown and Health & Safety zealots have anything to go by.

Three months ago, right at the time when we were going into and then locked down, we were specifically told by the WHO and our own governments both in Westminster and Brussels that face masks can be worn but it would do little to stop you from catching the virus.

Now the Director General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom, has recommended that face mask use be encouraged or mandatory by many governments around the world, the latter of which is what the pro-face-mask wearers are increasingly on board with, which explains why they have been begging the government to make sure that face mask use be not just in ‘enclosed spaces’ but also everywhere you go outdoors, with some users suggesting rather extreme ways to enforce the new law which would include fines of up to £1000 if caught and a conviction under the Terrorism Act if caught breaking the law as a repeat offender (no joke).

This is the very top state of fear the masses have been placed under to beg Big Daddy Government to step in and soothe their tears & pain as a result of whatever is hurting them now in the present day – all part of the simple process explained by David Icke in his many books and talks called Problem-Reaction-Solution.

Step 1. Create a problem or exploit an already existing problem of which it can be exaggerated in both the main forms of media and society for what follows next.

Step 2. Have the public react to the problems carried out in the previous step and the key demand comes out, “somebody please do something!”.

Step 3. Right as the second step has been completed, have someone (especially the leader or ruler) step in with whatever ‘solution’ is needed to quickly and permanently make the problem(s) go away.

Think about how up until the 7/7 attacks that took place on underground trains and a bus in London led to ticket barriers becoming mandatory at every underground and main central city-based train stations of both kinds in the UK as a result, you could queue up to buy a ticket from the office box and just hop on a train as well as film trains arriving and departing from the big stations without staff members & security guards wondering why you’re there.

Then think about how you were not allowed as an air passenger to bring more than 100ml worth of liquids including water and even hairsprays on board a plane from 2006 onward because some wannabe terrorists decided to try and blow up a few planes leaving London Heathrow Airport with liquid bottles.

Then think about how you now have to pay £3 and have your registration number checked on a digital camera and be forced to wait just outside Glasgow Airport’s entrance doors for a maximum time of 30 minutes as a result of some eejits deciding to drive a flaming green Jeep Cherokee into the entrance of the airport in 2007 (with one terrorist being kicked in the balls by baggage handler John Smeaton in the fighting that erupted).

And finally, think about how in some arenas known for hosting musical artists in the UK now have to have airport-style security checkpoints in case some idiotic terrorist decides to blow himself up with nails flying all over the place during a concert just like what happened at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in 2017.

These things happened because the ruling government saw the panic unfold as a result of these horrible events and enacted the solutions which in reality only serve to take away our basic freedoms and liberties bit by bit by bit, but because the people directly affected and the wider public are panic-stricken by what they witnessed.

Their logic on how to really deal with a bad situation and move on from their grief flies out the window, to transfer away their power on how to strongly deal with the problem they experienced & witnessed and replace it with a form of force. Which they usually don’t realise deep down is bad until it’s too late, results in our basic freedoms and liberties taken away by central authority.

To even dare to question the ‘solution’ provided in order to defend your freedom to live as you want to without hurting anyone else will instantly put you in the group-assigned category of a pariah. You will instantly be smeared and labelled by the group with many ad hominem & insults as if what you are suggesting will somehow put the group in danger of the threat that happened beforehand, and that to the greatest extent, you may be sympathising and/or coordinating with those bad guys to cause the previous problem in the first place.

In the case of disputing the idea of having to wear a face mask outside at all costs, even if you are physically away from people, the most common argument put across for why you should wear one is because you are ‘helping to save other people’ being able to catch any virus, let alone COVID-19 – we already are by staying at home (especially if we have symptoms of the virus along with cold and flu and other kinds of viruses), washing our hands and going out only when we need to with protective equipment including face masks and gloves!

In reality, that has to only start with those who do not want to catch it in the first place while other people are at least able to breathe in air normally. At least, those who want to wear a face mask should have the choice to do so without any blatant discrimination although people do have a right to disagree without being forceful about it.

But no! The ones that want to push for mandatory face mask wearing think that this isn’t enough to solve everything and that by explaining this, you now are oppressing their right to go about their daily lives and are a threat to them because you ‘may’ be carrying the virus even if you don’t show symptoms (asymptomatic).

Some also have lately been claiming that there is an urgent need to ‘stamp out anti-face-mask hatred!’. So the ultimate solution taken up by central Government is to make the vast majority of people wear face masks the same as those whining minorities who do wear them just so they can be satisfied in going about their daily business.

Even children, who dare to be scared and curiously ask their Mum & Dad, “why is that person wearing a mask?”, have been in their sights for ‘tackling bigotry and idiocy’; is it ever such an ideal world for them to grow up in (?). Who knows if elderly people living in care homes scared of staff wearing the masks may come under that target category at some point as well?

That said however, some ideas have been presented that those who may not actually take wearing a mask at all (asthmatics, the very mentally disabled, the physically disabled, the elderly with bad conditions, children under 2 ) are to be exempt from being forced to wear a face mask. Because it’s about living up to the reputation of protecting the most vulnerable in society, according to the same people pushing this who would brand you as a threat to the elderly.

Except those that don’t agree with the mob and don’t think like them. To which the response is to hope they die of the ‘consequences’ of not wearing a mask and, for a bonus treat, be denied medical treatment related to COVID-19 at any NHS Hospital. The same institution we’re all told to be loudly thankful for. (We’ll be even louder if they actually live up to “inclusivity” and stand up to anyone who says someone they disagree with should be denied their basic right to treatment).

Some of those who are in favour of the mandatory face mask laws have actually suggested openly staring at those that do not wear face masks in enclosed areas where face masks are not required, and a tiny minority have even taken the extreme effort to actively harass anyone, including joggers, for not wearing a face mask outside. Even if they are social distancing.

To give our side of the story. To explain why mandated face mask wearing is pointless. Here are the following examples given:

David Heymann, who led the WHO’s infectious disease unit at the time of the SARS epidemic from 2002-2003. Stated at a Chatham House meeting on 20th February earlier this year, that while face masks are useful in stopping you from coughing or sneezing over other people’s faces, he also said that “a mask that is used to stop getting an infection is sometimes not very effective because people take it off to eat.

Many times they are worn improperly. If they get wet and somebody sneezes on that mask it could pass through. I would think that there is way too much wearing of masks although some places like Hong Kong have required that people on the underground use masks — and that is their sovereign right to do so. That is their “risk assessment”.

So by his logic, if you were to sneeze while wearing your mask, the droplets from your body would still be able to get through the mask and infect other people around you? Likely the sides of the mask would provide an easy escape route for the viral droplets to travel to anyone sitting beside you on the bus or train.

If the theory is presented that these facts must be ‘right-wing’, the left-wing Guardian newspaper admitted in April earlier this year that face masks do little if anything to stop you from catching any kind of virus at all, let alone Coronavirus. Asthma UK advises those with asthma not to wear a face mask if it will affect their ability to breathe normally.

Getting fresh air and breathing it from outside, which you always have been doing everyday in your life, has a powerful effect in reducing your stress, cleaning your lungs and boosting your immune system. Cutting junk food, processed sugar, tobacco and alcohol out of your diet would also help to boost your immune system against any virus.

If you think about it, your immune system works in the same way it would if you practise trying to throw a ball against any corner of the wall in front of you so that you then catch the ball as it rises or falls towards you. You definitely won’t succeed in catching it on the first few attempts but if you put the effort in to learning from your mistakes, you’ll eventually succeed and be more prepared to catch it every time.

The same would also apply if you ever became a victim of a scam. Just because you become aware of the tricks the scammer used against you the first time, and you help the police to raise awareness about what happened to you, does not mean the scammer will never try a different plan when targeting you again or someone else. The only time that scammers are defeated in their plot to target you is if you became aware of every scam that takes place in the entire world and that way, you will be fully prepared and no longer fooled in case they strike again.

This is what leads to the explanation about the immune system: your body makes proteins called antibodies that destroy abnormal or foreign cells. They help fend off common ailments like the flu or a cold, and protect you against major illnesses like cancer or heart disease. You also have a backup response known as the “cell-mediated immune system.” This involves immune system cells rather than antibodies. They help your body create memories of past defenses against certain threats.

When your body sees that invader again, it calls up that memory and sets out to destroy the threat before the disease develops. If your antibodies are not able to practice their target shooting skills, via the ability to breathe, smell, see, hear and touch, then they will never be prepared when the real threat eventually shows up and the shit hits the fan. You can do all you can to reduce the chances of catching anything, let alone a very bad strain of Coronavirus.

But in the end you eventually will catch it, in the small chance you unfortunately find yourself in.

Furthermore, how exactly are the face masks going to produced in order to be given to millions of people in Scotland, let alone over 7 billion people in the world? If they are to be disposable, there’s a chance that with so many people reluctant to return to their jobs at recycling and waste collection & processing centres, and with people too scared to pick up rubbish in case they catch the virus, the amount of litter involving face masks will rise escalating an already existing problem with waste pollution.

To greatly transform our lives to the point where we can not only be forced to hug each other with a flexible plastic wall, but probably go out in a giant soft ball like a hamster. So that we cannot meet anyone in person and explore the world around us. Is only going to stifle our very given ability to express ourselves. If those basic forms of behaviour between consenting adults are denied, then so is the ability to reproduce and create new offspring when needed.

When your parents and grandparents and ancestors were able to meet each other and eventually bring you into the world, they never had to take completely over the top safety precautions to make sure they never ever catch any bacteria from them whatsoever. Some precautions were rightly taken in case any actual killer disease could be transmitted sexually (hence the reason condoms were invented in the 1980s at the height of the AIDS/HIV epidemic) but never to the point where life itself as we know it could not be enjoyed again.

When you first crawled on the ground as a child, even with lots of standard cleaning in place (unless you live in poverty and/or a Third World country) and then walked with more play time in hand, you already began picking up bacteria via the method of touching the ground. When you hug and kiss the love of your life, you transfer lots of bacteria between each other. When these activities are denied and removed, your ability to enact your basic form of human nature is destroyed in your soul.


1. Link to news article about WHO recommending Face Masks. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—5-june-2020
2. Screenshots of outrageous tweets.
3. Link to news article on SNP MSP suggesting that non face mask users be stared at. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18493718.coronavirus-snp-minister-suggests-staring-shoppers-without-face-masks/
4. Link to David Heymann. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/coronavirus-who-on-the-lessons-learned-from-the-sars-epidemic.html
5. Link to Guardian article. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/11/can-a-face-mask-protect-me-from-coronavirus-covid-19-myths-busted#maincontent
7. Link to mask study – https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
9. Links to Asthma UK – https://www.asthma.org.uk/advice/triggers/coronavirus-covid-19/what-should-people-with-asthma-do-now/#Facemask
11. Links to article on fresh air being good for you. https://www.phantomscreens.com/resource/getting-fresh-part-1-the-health-benefits-of-fresh-air/
12. Links to cutting out alcohol, tobacco and junk food being good for you. https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/your-immune-system-sees-junk-food-as-a-virus/



13. Face mask litter – https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/science/littered-face-masks-used-against-covid-19-increases-pollution-in-china.html



Jonathan Rainey is a SLP activist and Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the 2021 Scottish Election


This post was written by

8 Comments on "Why We Should Oppose Mandatory Face mask Laws"

  • Stuart Whitby says

    Another potential factor in the fight against Covid is raw milk, whose sale is banned in Scotland in 1983 after a high number of Listeriosis (iirc) cases in the 1970s. However, since the ban has come in we’ve got published academic papers which show the inverse link between raw milk consumption and asthma and allergy, confirmation that raw milk has a protective effect, identification of the component that provides the effect, evidence that raw milk consumption improves the gut biome (which no one really knew much about at all in the 1980s), improves intestinal barrier function which protects against e-coli (despite having a higher risk than pasteurised of carrying it), and has a protective effect against chronic inflammatory respiratory illness …. such as the pneumonia that is causing some of the deaths post Covid infection.

    Getting this kind of legislation removed is far harder than getting it implemented. Politicians love to be seen to “do stuff to protect the public”, and don’t like admitting their mistakes. I’ve pushed for the removal of the ban during this SP term, and will be doing much more next term once the new set of MSPs comes in (then I’ve got a 5 year window).

    The biggest issue with this is the removal of what should be basic rights of individuals to trade freely for mutual benefit.

    • Admin says

      Agreed, Thanks for your comment Stuart.

  • Admin says

    What the Government Actually Thinks About Muzzles

    ‘The evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small’.

    HM Government


  • Ally says

    Mandatory facemasks in shops. I’m sorry however I cant honestly , logically get this. Iv worked for years dealing with infection control procedures, following protocol, youseing equipment masks to prevent infections from being spread, or at least isolate to one place. How can a scarf , face covering made from anything honestly prevent anything being given or got. 1. Coverings are put on and took off continuously so even if a droplet had got on the outside of scarf , people then put on scarf again and are still at risk of droplet reaching them, never mind most people continuously touch mask or coverings thus continuously spreading germs droplets, as well as wearing round chin . I see no benefit to this ridiculous mandatory rule. I’m honestly disgusted and outraged at this. I wish I had the resources and time, help to prove how this face covering ,mandatory is not at all beneficial and intact government should be ashamed for leading people into a false sence of security, never mind falsely telling them a scarf home made masks are a good idea, as well as lack of knowledge guidance on masks, diet, disposal of masks. And I could go on and on but what’s the point.

  • Ally says

    What can be done to appose this ruling.

  • Adam says

    As a naturally libertarian leaning person I wasn’t surprised to see this argument against face masks being made. An uncomfortable nuisance imposed on the general population by a government that is contemptible at best is perfect place for libertarians to make a stance. However, I do believe this particular approach is flawed. I believe it is clear that the scientific evidence for mask wearing reducing the spread of the virus is very strong, this coupled with the low likelihood that any given person will symptomatically transmit the virus in Scotland anyway is, to me, a logical argument. The original article alludes to sneezing and droplets escaping through the side of the mask, surely the effect of this sneeze is drastically limited by the mask even if some droplets are dispersed and I’d ask whether they would prefer someone sneeze without a mask near them. Or indeed whether we should allow surgeons to perform surgery without PPE as it is uncomfortable? I’ll reiterate that the libertarian argument for this is strong but I think inconsistent with science, and if the purpose of libertarianism is also the propagation of human wellbeing then listening and trusting in respected scientific bodies is the correct thing to do? Thanks!

    • Admin says

      Hello Adam, your viewpoint is of course appreciated. But even in your comment you show that there is a difference between PPE that is worn by medical personnel (which, importantly doesn’t just feature masks but also includes procedures that need to be followed and personnel that is trained in them) and the masks used on a daily basis by regular people.

      While the masks may offer some degree of protection, there seems to be a clear disagreement about how much it is and whether it’s in the end worth it – as indicated by the authorities of different countries choosing to prescribe or not to prescribe masks, supported by their various respected scientific bodies. Which government’s science do choose to trust? And are you going to pick one or realise that there is room for disagreement here?

      On the other note, there is indeed a huge question of how to choose between safety and living your life, even when there are real risks. But even then there is no simple answer. Take cars as an example, extremely useful tools that are involved in many deaths. If you wanted to aim for maximum safety, you could mandate that people are only allowed to drive in essentially tanks, extremely safe and expensive armoured cars that are limited to 20mph, forbidding anyone but the wealthiest from even coming close to a car. Or you could ban cars completely and make our lives so much poorer.

Leave Your Comment