We saw this coming when we reported on Durham’s demand that people conceal their faces in public places. Hanover, another College town (Dartmouth), has passed a face mask mandate. People snitched on by triggered locals will get a stern talking too (and Hanover has plenty of those). Multiple offenders will get fined.
On Monday, the Hanover Selectboard unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 39, which requires masks to be worn by those two years and older in “the more densely-settled areas of Hanover.”
“We’re focused on public sidewalks, in retail, in restaurants, in government buildings, on the campus, anywhere you’re likely to be in relatively close proximity to other people,” Town Manager Julia Griffin said.
The ordinance said, “A face covering is also not required to be worn by any person if said person can show a medical professional has advised that wearing a face-covering may pose a risk to said person for health-related reasons.”
The [Keene] ordinance requires that employees wear face masks when dealing with the public, and requires members of the public to do the same whenever entering a business. It defines an appropriate face covering as one made of “cloth, fabric, paper or other soft or permeable materials, without holes, mesh, or exhaust valves.” It also specifies that masks must cover the mouth and the nose.
Exempted from the ordinance are children under 10, people whose health could be put at risk if they wear a mask and also establishments that are membership-based and don’t invite the public inside. When New Hampshire’s COVID-19 state of emergency expires, Keene’s mask ordinance will sunset.
Penalties for violating the ordinance are a verbal warning on the first offense, a written warning on the second offense, a $100 fine on the third offense and a $250 fine for all subsequent offenses.
Now, go and find yourself a copy of the New Hampshire Constitution.
[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.
Public Health is not a recognized right and though many want madly to infer it from other things, it is not.
It is, therefore, unconstitutional to force you to give up any other right in deference to it. The state cannot decide that healthy people are unessential, shall be unemployable, must stay at home, or force them to hide their faces in public as a matter of public health.
And for Good Reason
Nothing in our State bill of rights or any portion of the State constitution would be immune to surrender or infringement if a Governor or legislature decided that doing so served some public health interest.
But once again, here we are subjected to the will or local tyrants exercising what the new England Journal of Medicine called, “a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” Noting that, “Focusing on universal masking …may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19.”
The chances of transmission in public, they noted, is minimal. What is not is the Left’s desire to scratch its naturally occurring and significantly larger totalitarian itch. And so they have and will, passing on that contagion at every opportunity for as long as politically necessary.