There are a few outs for this in the event of legal challanges. It's likely this goes against the Charter, and it would be absurd for a minority government to invoke the "notwithstanding clause," to force it through, which is a government veto on everything else in the charter.
A mandate also means the people subject to it are not giving their consent, sort of like how you "consent" to an invasive search in an airport, which violates privacy laws for health information in most provinces. The policy is contemptible, and even though I can't think of a better cohort for forced medical procedures than the architects of this appalling attack on freedom who work in the permanent state, I would still defend their individual liberty and bodily integrity as much as the next Canadian.
Further, you get nothing back for complying. You still wear masks, you still show a vaccine passport to eat indoors, (with slots for 10 or more boosters in some cases), the government still destroys small businesses and forfeits its accountability to "committees" of scientists, who are mostly social scientists, as though letting scientists decide policy was legitimate at all. So called emergency powers that enable random stop and question powers for vague deputized and untrained people remain on the books "just in case."
I understand your passport shows the date of your shot that you have to share with whoever demands it, so once you have hesitated, does it really matter how long, comrade?
Authoritarianism isn't science. Submission is not a civic duty. I've been predicting this stuff since the beginning and haven't been wrong yet. However, this country is so divided I'm not even angry, as that would be frustration from the assumption these people can be reasoned with. The only thing you can do is hold them to the law.
The people resisting mandates and passport policies are contributing to the well being of their society more than I think this comment understands. As someone who has logged more volunteer hours during covid than I have in years, on top of a couple of jobs, the people who are against mandates and passports are what being civic minded looks like.
The way these people talk, I wonder if they also have issues with "complying" with: having to insure their vehicle, wearing a seatbelt, not farting in a crowded elevator, sneezing into their sleeve, wearing clothes in public...
How is it against the Charter†? Airlines, to take one example, are federally regulated: so if there's a new regulation that says to fly you have to have been vaccinated, how is that stepping on provincial jurisdiction?
† Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for non-Canadians.
> Further, you get nothing back for complying.
How about reducing the probability of using up an ICU bed by a substantial margin? In many places (in CA and US), out of 100 ICU beds often >95 are taken up by the non-vaccinated. In some places 100% of new admissions are the unvaccinated:
But this isn't an argument about not being vaccinated, this is an argument about mandates and passports, and conflating them is the histrionic authoritarian problem.
While we're not going to litigate the charter federally in an HN thread, the separate provincial privacy laws about health information and consent apply to patients as individuals, and just because you're flying between them doesn't remove your rights. They are different from the charter issue, but there are still avenues for challenge.
Even taking the data at face value, blaming "the unavaccinated," as an outgroup has nothing to do with passports, and everything to do with a petty, cowed, and propagandized population, whose apprehension of ethics and morality is on the level of a superstitious mob watching professional wrestling.
These are what makes the issue irreconcilable, and why all that is left is the law.
>There are a few outs for this in the event of legal challanges. It's likely this goes against the Charter, and it would be absurd for a minority government to invoke the "notwithstanding clause," to force it through, which is a government veto on everything else in the charter.
Some (atlantic)judges have already ruled on how the charter reacts to health pandemics. Not-withstanding clause is not needed.
If Canadians had a problem with this. They wouldn't have voted Liberal, Con, or NDP. The Peoples party provided an alternative option and they didnt gain a single seat.
A mandate also means the people subject to it are not giving their consent, sort of like how you "consent" to an invasive search in an airport, which violates privacy laws for health information in most provinces. The policy is contemptible, and even though I can't think of a better cohort for forced medical procedures than the architects of this appalling attack on freedom who work in the permanent state, I would still defend their individual liberty and bodily integrity as much as the next Canadian.
Further, you get nothing back for complying. You still wear masks, you still show a vaccine passport to eat indoors, (with slots for 10 or more boosters in some cases), the government still destroys small businesses and forfeits its accountability to "committees" of scientists, who are mostly social scientists, as though letting scientists decide policy was legitimate at all. So called emergency powers that enable random stop and question powers for vague deputized and untrained people remain on the books "just in case."
I understand your passport shows the date of your shot that you have to share with whoever demands it, so once you have hesitated, does it really matter how long, comrade?
Authoritarianism isn't science. Submission is not a civic duty. I've been predicting this stuff since the beginning and haven't been wrong yet. However, this country is so divided I'm not even angry, as that would be frustration from the assumption these people can be reasoned with. The only thing you can do is hold them to the law.