Look.

I’m a queer. The last thing I want is police involved in public health.

But on masks I do think there must be a middle ground between “recommendations” and police running wild.

A mandate gives crowded indoor places a better signal to enforce their policies.

Woolworths in Pitt Street has had a sign up pretty much all year begging people to wear masks in store, but they had to recognise it was voluntary.

A mandate, even a temporary one gives retailers, workplaces, community organisations some confidence to enforce.

I’ve got friends working in retail who are TERRIFIED.

They need money to live, but they’ve got people coming into their workplaces putting them at risk.

People actively ignoring “recommendations”

A mandate is a signal that can empower high risk locations to protect the people within those locations.

I also agree that the police are the least appropriate and most damaging option for enforcement. Fines and punishment hurt marginalised communities.

I think there’s other triggers we can pull through a mandate.

Getting on a train? Here’s a mask provided for free. You don’t get on the train without a mask on.

At most, police should be handing out masks, not fines.

I’m sure a bunch of you will poke holes in these ideas. Great! Every option should be interrogated.

My point is there must be a better middle ground that protects public health without the harshness and policing of SA/VIC and the ineffective recommendations of NSW.

I just wish we wouldn’t treat everything as a binary.

Marginalised communities get hurt if we don’t prevent the spread and marginalised communities get hurt if we use police as our first resort.

We shouldn’t accept either and be willing to navigate the nuance.