Your options for being able to exit Canada now are severely restricted if you are unvaccinated, particularly if you cannot enter the US. It appears you will need to charter a private plane or ship to emigrate. I suspect the right to emigrate (a human right according to the UN) will be further restricted by authoritarian regimes around the world such as the one running Canada.
Your right to emigrate is not meaningfully impaired, for the same reason that it isn't meaningfully impaired by the requirement that you wear shoes at the airport.
The claim was this was a burden on par with shoes. I claim it is far beyond that and many of the US mandates will be struck down. The precedent is a state level mandate with a $150 penalty.
Organizations/companies can still impose basically any requirements they want to in the US. In general, state/federal requirements are basically air cover.
Here's the full CDC brief[1]. The short version: your religious belief generally has to be "sincerely held" (which means that you don't get to pick and choose which vaccines you take based on political winds). Some states have even stronger constraints, including you to present an affidavit and demonstrate that your religious beliefs are not merely an extension of some misguided personal belief.
> Workers and passengers age 12 and older on trains, planes and marine transport operating domestically - which are federally regulated - must show they have been inoculated by Oct. 30.
Ah this is good. Hope it stays that way. Thank you for sharing. I’m also glad if seeing this fact helps people form opinions how they would feel if it weren’t the case.
You generally have to have a passport and entry visa (or equivalent) to fly internationally. The baseline is not a 'free for all'.
~100 years after arbitrary requirements are imposed on international travel, people freak out about one that is a direct response to exigent circumstances and not likely to be permanent.
It’s about the right to exit. A situation where people sit by while basic rights are eroded for others is most likely to happen when there is a rationalization for reasonable people to support it. See also: the NSA mass surveillance program after 9/11.
I guess you are probably free to walk into an ocean regardless of vaccination status, I'm not sure what other situation post implementation of the international passport system would reasonably be described by a 'right to exit'.
The point is if another destination would have you, it is a violation of your right to be unable to freely exit. If hypothetically Canada did not allow you to board a non-chartered plane to emigrate I would argue this would be encroaching if not outright violating this right.
That stereotyping and scapegoating of the unvaccinated is occurring and is animating the support of increasingly oppressive policies against them. Many of whom have natural immunity and pose less risk than those vaccinated in early 2021.
The oppression is being barred from travel, work, and many aspects of public life. If you strip away your opinions about the risk and benefits of vaccination and look at the people not vaccinated as a group agnotistically, they are being oppressed more and more each week, and many of them have better antibodies than the vaccinated at this point.
What will you do if the government mandates you to take a drug for similar justifications one day, but you actually honestly do not think it is safe for you? Do you think this precedent even if we assume good intentions is a good slope to be eagerly sliding down? What if we find drug interactions or other correlated variables that harm people who take it, or evidence comes along that affect your decision but the government disagrees? How much do you trust the authorities to navigate this, and how much are you willing to give up to them if you are one day on the non-consensus side?
> The oppression is being barred from travel, work, and many aspects of public life.
I'm sorry, but you're not oppressed. You've decided not to take a free and effective vaccine, and society is going to make collective public health decisions whether you participate or not.
Not really. If you disagree, I dare you to burn your vaccination card and see how life is for you over the coming months.
There are many people like me who do not like seeing what is going on and are fully vaccinated. We have read enough history and have seen the hatred forming towards people divided on political and cultural lines, as the state pushes the envelope of acceptable oppression as it always does. Authoritarianism only happens when enough people can form a “reasonable” argument justifying it, usually out of fear or hatred of others, not rationally. Given the lack of acceptance of natural immunity, rationality seems not a full explanation.
Just because you think getting vaccinated is a good idea doesn’t mean you can ignore oppression around you towards those who are trying to defend their right to body autonomy. Besides, what if you are next?
> Not really. If you disagree, I dare you to burn your vaccination card and see how life is for you over the coming months.
New York state, in its infinite wisdom, has electronic vaccine records. There's even a blockchain involved, for some reason.
I shared my vaccine records with my elementary school, middle school, high school, and college before attending each. If I had burned those records, they would have made me get vaccinated again. But that doesn't make me "oppressed," it makes me a fool who burned my vaccine records.
> Besides, what if you are next?
Oblique comparisons to the Holocaust are as ridiculous and offensive as direct ones.
I was required to get a DTaP vaccine in college (in another state, mind you) because I couldn't prove that I had gotten one as an adolescent. I had gotten one, but I'd lost the record.
No, you’ve misunderstood: I lost the records between high school. I have multiple friends who were required to get their MMR vaccines again in high school because they couldn’t find their records.
Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? This is it.
It's not the government oppressing unvaccinated, it's us, the majority doing it, because we consider unvaccinated people irresponsible.
But oblio, I hear you say, that's mean, that's not fair, it's not democracy. Yes it is, that's why modern democracies have constitutions that protect basic rights and minority rights.
Basic rights apply for all but if unvaccinated basic rights (in this case the right to not be inconvenienced for a bit by vaccination) infringe majority basic rights (the right to life and long term wellbeing), frequently they don't apply.
Plus unvaccinated people are not a valid minority. They're not a protected minority anywhere in the world.
Thankfully being anti-science and antisocial is not a protected category anywhere in the world that I know of.
What makes unvaccinated people smarter than ALL the rest of us? Do they think that we're all collectively and individually dumber than them? Their arrogance is astounding. They all think they're Galileo when 99.9999% are Bozo the Clown, or worse, shortsighted and maliciously selfish people.
Maybe think a bit harder on what it means to set the precedent if the government can bar you, as an adult, from all employment or travel based upon your willingness to take a drug or not. Or pick up a history book about what happens when an easily identified group of people (who, in this case, are typically stereotyped as being of a certain race, political party, and culture) start being blamed for things such as the deaths of children from a virus, and are stereotyped by the media and those in government as collectively selfish, ignorant, and the cause of all of our problems.
Don't let your fear or contempt for others land you in the category of people that have led the charge on setting up systems that are eventually turned on them once the next group gets their hands on the reins.
As far as being anti-science goes, the vaccine mandates which do not account for natural immunity or the date you got your vaccines are fundamentally anti-science.
> Maybe think a bit harder on what it means to set the precedent if the government can bar you, as an adult, from all employment or travel based upon your willingness to take a drug or not. Or pick up a history book about what happens when an easily identified group of people (who, in this case, are typically stereotyped as being of a certain race, political party, and culture) start being blamed for things such as the deaths of children from a virus, and are stereotyped by the media and those in government as collectively selfish, ignorant, and the cause of all of our problems.
This is gross, it's basically an end to the dicussion. One is an immutable characteristic (being Jewish), the other one is a choice.
Your comment either contains a huge fallacy, or more likely, considering your other comments, pushes an agenda.
> As far as being anti-science goes, the vaccine mandates which do not account for natural immunity or the date you got your vaccines are fundamentally anti-science. Either way, goodbye!
> As far as being anti-science goes, the vaccine mandates which do not account for natural immunity or the date you got your vaccines are fundamentally anti-science.
In Europe at least the green passport also includes:
* a recent test
* proof of having had Covid
But then again, I'm getting nowhere with this discussion and hopefully sane governments won't listen to people like you.
> This is gross, it's basically an end to the dicussion. One is an immutable characteristic (being Jewish), the other one is a choice.
Nice work plugging your ears and declaring an end to the discussion, this is surely the way to go and a sign of intellectual maturity.
You know that one of the bloodiest wars in European history was fought between who chose to be Protestant and who chose to be Catholic, correct? At the time, people like yourself surely were making the argument the conflict would quickly end if only those foolish and evil Catholics would just understand their error, repent, and do the right thing and join the Reformation. Catholics were, of course, deeply harming society, since an offense on God like indulgences was an offense on all and risked destroying society. And, of course, if you were in Spain, the opposite argument was made regarding the rebellous Protestants undermining the much-needed authority of the Church. While the bodies stacked up.
The nature of tribalistic discrimination is not rooted in choice or not choice. It is rooted in the identification of tribes and the ability for such a tribe to be oppressed due to a power differential, often motivated by fear, stereotyping, blame, or distrust. Tribes of which it is often the case that immutable characteristics drive the labeling process for obvious reasons, but often due to choices or beliefs. Humans have murdered millions and millions of people in tribal conflicts that are entirely grounded in choices of religion, political alignment, or other beliefs or behaviors that allow easy segmentation and identification of who is in which group.
I realize you want to try to clamber up to some kind of moral high ground by boxing me into something I'm not - I'm used to this method being used by those defending the idea it is just that millions of people shouldn't be able to work or go to the grocery store if they are unvaccinated - but you're just making yourself look foolish by declaring an end to discussions because of your emotional reaction to what I am saying. The tribalization of the choice to take the vaccine or not, combined with the very direct rationalizability of the oppression of these people (as nicely demonstrated by your previous reply) is a danger zone and is one that people who understand human behavior and history should be very concerned about.
Unless we have a stroke of luck and the threat of the virus subsides (something which seems increasingly less likely), we we should expect is an increased ratcheting up of oppression of the unvaccinated, who will dig in as well. The result, as always, will ultimately be violence, once the unvaccinated cannot tolerate it any further. Many will never get the vaccine: by making it a form of civil disobedience now, not merely a healthcare choice, we have guaranteed it. So we should hope that we get lucky and the seeds of conflict dissipate by science quelling the threat of the virus sufficiently that bystanders can no longer stomach barring unvaccinated people from public life.
Just because you can spell "stereotyping" doesn't mean that you understand what the word means. There's no stereotyping when it comes to people who refuse a vaccine that is proven to be effective at reducing the symptoms of a life-altering or life-ending virus. They're stupid.
Painting people with a broad brush as you are doing here is stereotyping and is also a sign of stupidity. There are a lot of sane reasons to not get the vaccine. I don’t personally agree with them in most cases (except avoiding it for now in children) - but many of these reasons are not rooted in stupidity but different priors on risk. You have revealed your own ignorance and arguably your own stupidity (given the stereotyping) in several ways here, though.
