Letter: Samraj vote, explanation disappointing

By Letter to the Editor on December 8, 2020.

I have deep respect for Councilman Samraj. Though we hold differing positions, I know Councilman Samraj to be a thoughtful, well prepared, and hard working member of council.

I am aware of the many hours of his own time he has put into representing the city on numerous boards. However, his decision last week to vote against the mask bylaw, followed by his article attempting to explain his decision in Saturday’s paper was, for me, and many others, disappointing.

Councilman Samraj’s position rests on three statements

1. He voted against the mask bylaw because he feels a city council should not add health measures beyond provincial guidelines.

2. We should let Jason Kenney make those decisions.

3. We should rely on Dr. Hinshaw.

Only one of these statements is acceptable.

A mask bylaw should be based on health considerations, not political ones. Dr. Hinshaw’s medical opinion should trump all others.

Surely Councilman Samraj knew of the leaked tapes of Dr. Hinshaw’s advice being overruled by the Premier. Dr. Hinshaw was advocating, in camera, for a wide-ranging lockdown and mask legislation. The Premier opted for politics over health. Councilman Samraj did the same. Eleven other cities had already implemented mask bylaws before Medicine Hat did. Why did Councilman Samraj choose to follow Jason Kenney rather than follow the example of those eleven city councils?

Peter Mueller

Medicine Hat

12
-11