Vaccine mandate prevention act

[J Roc]

Luckily, workplace safety trumps both your perceived charter and human rights. Who knew Section 1 would be the most important Charter right 5 years ago?

Section 1 of the charter requires any limitation to a chartered right and freedom to be "Demonstrably justified." The travel mandates were not demonstrably justified. Quite the opposite actually.

https://www.thefp.com/p/court-documents ... das-travel

Also, keep in mind that that case was dismissed for being "moot" (the travel mandates were suspended). It WAS NOT dismissed because the government proved that they satisfy the Oakes test. The same goes for Brian Peckfords case. A man that knows a thing or two about the Charter.

Additionally, there are multiple class action lawsuits in the works against the Federal government over travel mandates and federal worker mandates.

Canada's judicial system is nothing like our neighbors to the south. It will take time, but with patience and as we learn, the government and corporations will eventually run out of strategies to avoid accountability. It just takes time and patience.

Oh, and as far as your "workplace safety" remark? Well, that's just absurd. Canada's airline that claimed to be the "world's most vaccinated airline" had 183 crew members book off with covid in December of 2021; the month they became the world's most vaccinated airline. From January 2022 to March 2022 they also broke Covid book off records.

So to claim that any of this was based on science or that workplace safety was enhanced in any way is patently false.

[kgb531]

Besides signing it as his position as premier, do tell what Brian Peckford, a school teacher, knows about the constitution?
The travel mandates were easily justifiable. How one cannot understand that is remarkable.

Luckily, workplace safety trumps both your perceived charter and human rights. Who knew Section 1 would be the most important Charter right 5 years ago?

Section 1 of the charter requires any limitation to a chartered right and freedom to be "Demonstrably justified." The travel mandates were not demonstrably justified. Quite the opposite actually.

https://www.thefp.com/p/court-documents ... das-travel

Also, keep in mind that that case was dismissed for being "moot" (the travel mandates were suspended). It WAS NOT dismissed because the government proved that they satisfy the Oakes test. The same goes for Brian Peckfords case. A man that knows a thing or two about the Charter.

Additionally, there are multiple class action lawsuits in the works against the Federal government over travel mandates and federal worker mandates.

Canada's judicial system is nothing like our neighbors to the south. It will take time, but with patience and as we learn, the government and corporations will eventually run out of strategies to avoid accountability. It just takes time and patience.

Oh, and as far as your "workplace safety" remark? Well, that's just absurd. Canada's airline that claimed to be the "world's most vaccinated airline" had 183 crew members book off with covid in December of 2021; the month they became the world's most vaccinated airline. From January 2022 to March 2022 they also broke Covid book off records.

So to claim that any of this was based on science or that workplace safety was enhanced in any way is patently false.

[kgb531]

What rights were taken away?

Each and every person had a choice, they knew the consequences before making that choice. Just because they didn't like some of the lose consequences doesn't mean they were forced. If they actually believed in their Cletus convoy scandemic ideology, they wouldn't have had a vaccination.
The vaccination did exactly as it was hoped. It mitigated severe outcomes that tie up healthcare facilities. That was obvious by seeing the unvaxxed covid patients taking up >3x as many beds as their proportion of the population should have been.

The epoch times. Lol.

Luckily, workplace safety trumps both your perceived charter and human rights. Who knew Section 1 would be the most important Charter right 5 years ago?

No offense, but I'm not going to discuss my personal medical situation with you.

The point is, many people had very legitimate reasons to abstain from the jab, which was easily supported by facts and science. Yet they were either forced or borderline exhorted into taking a medical intervention they did not need or could not take. In some cases, people were downright destroyed financially. It was criminal what happened in the winter of 21/22, and it should never happen again.

Many of my family and friends, who also took the jab, share the same objection. They regret succumbing to the unholy demands of the federal government and corporations.

They don't regret their decision because they think Bill Gates now has a patent on their DNA, but rather, they feel violated.

Sincere religious/conscientious objections and valid medical objections were ignored and trampled. Objections that should have been protected under The Human Rights Act. The government, and corporations that aligned with the government, crossed a line. A lot of lines. Rulings that support this statement are starting to come out, and more to come I'm sure. *see the link below

So, to get back to the original topic, I support PP's position and I'm happy there's a politician that dares to have the discussion. I don't feel he aligns with anti-vaxxers or some unhinged extremist group. I feel you've broad-stroked the issue, and dehumanized people who have suffered tremendously because of government overreach. Some won't agree with that, and that's fine, but your name-calling does nothing to move us forward. Real people had their lives ruined because of a completely unscientific mandate.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive ... _cmp=gv-cc&

I'm still waiting for a SINGLE shred of evidence that shows anything that they did, particularly the vaccine mandate, improved workplace safety for anyone other than the person taking it. The person taking it didn't even benefit, but that's another argument.

I would also bet everything I own that as soon as they use article one to do something you DONT agree with, you won't be so quick to cheer it on. The thing about these rights is that people don't seem to care when they are taken away if it's something that doesn't affect them. That's the reason they are so important. There are too many people who don't understand that.

But yeah, the most important part of the charter was the part that about how to get around it....

[CpnCrunch]

Epoch times or not, it's a legitimate ruling from a military tribunal. And I'm not arguing with you either. Just stating a position.

Take care.

It's not a "legitimate ruling". There was no ruling at all. The entire news story was completely made up.

[J Roc]

What rights were taken away?

Each and every person had a choice, they knew the consequences before making that choice. Just because they didn't like some of the lose consequences doesn't mean they were forced. If they actually believed in their Cletus convoy scandemic ideology, they wouldn't have had a vaccination.
The vaccination did exactly as it was hoped. It mitigated severe outcomes that tie up healthcare facilities. That was obvious by seeing the unvaxxed covid patients taking up >3x as many beds as their proportion of the population should have been.

The epoch times. Lol.

Luckily, workplace safety trumps both your perceived charter and human rights. Who knew Section 1 would be the most important Charter right 5 years ago?

I'm still waiting for a SINGLE shred of evidence that shows anything that they did, particularly the vaccine mandate, improved workplace safety for anyone other than the person taking it. The person taking it didn't even benefit, but that's another argument.

I would also bet everything I own that as soon as they use article one to do something you DONT agree with, you won't be so quick to cheer it on. The thing about these rights is that people don't seem to care when they are taken away if it's something that doesn't affect them. That's the reason they are so important. There are too many people who don't understand that.

But yeah, the most important part of the charter was the part that about how to get around it....

None of those statements are true. The covid vaccine was developed, and approved under emergency use authority (interim authority here in Canada), with the claim of stopping transmission and infection.

The EUA was never based on reducing symptoms or severe outcomes. There's NO WAY an experimental medical intervention would be approved under EUA as a therapeutic alone. Especially when there were cheap and effective therapeutics already available. Reduced symptoms and severe outcomes were a political talking point, parroted by the media.

Your claim is at best a possible correlation with zero scientific basis. Even the CDC admits this.

[kgb531]

The mRna vaccines have been under full approval since Sept 2021.
Not a single right has been taken away.
The purpose of each and every vaccine is to mitigate severe outcomes that overwhelm the healthcare system. Reduction in transmission is just an ancillary benefit.
There wasn't a single effective therapeutic available.
My"claim" is backed by actual health data from each and every province. I'm sorry if those facts don't fit your epochtimes/rfk narrative.
This thread constantly reminds me of how few of my colleagues have more than a high school science class education.

What rights were taken away?

Each and every person had a choice, they knew the consequences before making that choice. Just because they didn't like some of the lose consequences doesn't mean they were forced. If they actually believed in their Cletus convoy scandemic ideology, they wouldn't have had a vaccination.
The vaccination did exactly as it was hoped. It mitigated severe outcomes that tie up healthcare facilities. That was obvious by seeing the unvaxxed covid patients taking up >3x as many beds as their proportion of the population should have been.

The epoch times. Lol.

I'm still waiting for a SINGLE shred of evidence that shows anything that they did, particularly the vaccine mandate, improved workplace safety for anyone other than the person taking it. The person taking it didn't even benefit, but that's another argument.

I would also bet everything I own that as soon as they use article one to do something you DONT agree with, you won't be so quick to cheer it on. The thing about these rights is that people don't seem to care when they are taken away if it's something that doesn't affect them. That's the reason they are so important. There are too many people who don't understand that.

But yeah, the most important part of the charter was the part that about how to get around it....

None of those statements are true. The covid vaccine was developed, and approved under emergency use authority (interim authority here in Canada), with the claim of stopping transmission and infection.

The EUA was never based on reducing symptoms or severe outcomes. There's NO WAY an experimental medical intervention would be approved under EUA as a therapeutic alone. Especially when there were cheap and effective therapeutics already available. Reduced symptoms and severe outcomes were a political talking point, parroted by the media.

Your claim is at best a possible correlation with zero scientific basis. Even the CDC admits this.

[J Roc]

Epoch times or not, it's a legitimate ruling from a military tribunal. And I'm not arguing with you either. Just stating a position.

Take care.

It's not a "legitimate ruling". There was no ruling at all. The entire news story was completely made up.

You are correct to say it's not a "ruling." The MGERC is an independent committee that assesses military grievances. Their findings and recommendations are non-binding and have no jurisdiction over what we're discussing.

The point of the findings, however, is compelling and indicative of where this is going. That was the point. I'm extremely confident, with time and patience, these outcomes will become much more common.

[J Roc]

The mRna vaccines have been under full approval since Sept 2021.
Not a single right has been taken away.
The purpose of each and every vaccine is to mitigate severe outcomes that overwhelm the healthcare system. Reduction in transmission is just an ancillary benefit.
There wasn't a single effective therapeutic available.
My"claim" is backed by actual health data from each and every province. I'm sorry if those facts don't fit your epochtimes/rfk narrative.
This thread constantly reminds me of how few of my colleagues have more than a high school science class education.

There's a lot of misinformation in there, and unfortunately, I don't have the time to unpack it all for you.

I'm not looking for an argument, but rather a discussion. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely given the tone and nature of your insults. Breathe, and realize I'm not your enemy. Take care.

Have a wonderful summer, everyone.

Cheers

[kgb531]

It's not that you're not capable of voicing your opinions, it's that you don't realize you lack the requisite educational background and experience to understand the most simple elements of vaccines, constitutional law and covid. Neither of us do. I realize that.
I can only present facts, backed by raw data and court rulings. You present links to the epoch times. Just waiting for the rumble and YouTube links.

The mRna vaccines have been under full approval since Sept 2021.
Not a single right has been taken away.
The purpose of each and every vaccine is to mitigate severe outcomes that overwhelm the healthcare system. Reduction in transmission is just an ancillary benefit.
There wasn't a single effective therapeutic available.
My"claim" is backed by actual health data from each and every province. I'm sorry if those facts don't fit your epochtimes/rfk narrative.
This thread constantly reminds me of how few of my colleagues have more than a high school science class education.

There's a lot of misinformation in there, and unfortunately, I don't have the time to unpack it all for you.

I'm not looking for an argument, but rather a discussion. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely given the tone and nature of your insults. Breathe, and realize I'm not your enemy. Take care.

Have a wonderful summer, everyone.

Cheers

[CpnCrunch]

You are correct to say it's not a "ruling." The MGERC is an independent committee that assesses military grievances. Their findings and recommendations are non-binding and have no jurisdiction over what we're discussing.

The point of the findings, however, is compelling and indicative of where this is going. That was the point. I'm extremely confident, with time and patience, these outcomes will become much more common.

There are no findings. The entire story was just completely made up. Epoch times just preys on weak minded people who are unable to do some basic fact checking.

[J Roc]

You are correct to say it's not a "ruling." The MGERC is an independent committee that assesses military grievances. Their findings and recommendations are non-binding and have no jurisdiction over what we're discussing.

The point of the findings, however, is compelling and indicative of where this is going. That was the point. I'm extremely confident, with time and patience, these outcomes will become much more common.

There are no findings. The entire story was just completely made up. Epoch times just preys on weak minded people who are unable to do some basic fact checking.

I've already emailed the MGERC directly and I'm awaiting the case summary. Should it be a false committee finding, I'll promptly make the required corrections, along with an apology.

In the meantime, as it appears you've already properly fact-checked the article, could you share your source or editorial retraction?

Thanks!

[CpnCrunch]

I've already emailed the MGERC directly and I'm awaiting the case summary. Should it be a false committee finding, I'll promptly make the required corrections, along with an apology.

In the meantime, as it appears you've already properly fact-checked the article, could you share your source or editorial retraction?

Thanks!

If you look on the website of that govt organization there is no mention of this. There is no mention at all of this story in any other press article, even though the name of the person quoted is a government press officer. You think she just gave a secret story to Epoch Times and didn't publicize it anywhere else? It's pretty obviously all faked. She should sue these jokers for using her name.

[J Roc]

I've already emailed the MGERC directly and I'm awaiting the case summary. Should it be a false committee finding, I'll promptly make the required corrections, along with an apology.

In the meantime, as it appears you've already properly fact-checked the article, could you share your source or editorial retraction?

Thanks!

If you look on the website of that govt organization there is no mention of this. There is no mention at all of this story in any other press article, even though the name of the person quoted is a government press officer. You think she just gave a secret story to Epoch Times and didn't publicize it anywhere else? It's pretty obviously all faked. She should sue these jokers for using her name.

I agree, if this is a false story, Epoch Times should be sued. However, it wasn't just Nina Frid quoted in this article, so if it's fraudulent reporting, there will be multiple lawsuits. I find it interesting that any news outlet would take such a risk.

Kind of like Robert Kennedy Jr's book "The Real Anthony Fauci." How has Kennedy not been sued over the damning claims against Fauci and the NIAID? Maybe the threat that Kenndys claims will be verifiable through disclosure? Who knows, but I digress...

I wouldn't call other media outlets credible when it comes to reporting on these stories either, so that claim doesn't satisfy any skepticism.

I'll have to wait for the MGERC to respond to my email I guess. I'll keep you posted.

Cheers

[khedrei]

Its not worth your time J Roc. They are past drinking the kool-aid. They have been main lining it for over 3 years now. It wouldn't surprise me if they are on booster number 8.

I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence that the travel mandates helped anyone or made any sense kgb...

Of course peoples rights were taken away. The right to travel and leave the country. The right to assemble. Etc etc etc. People were locked in hotel rooms against their will who were not under arrest or charged with a crime.

You either forgot about these things, or you are ok with them. Either way, its likely a waste of my time or anyone else's to keep talking to you about this.

Good day.

[TG]

Its not worth your time J Roc. They are past drinking the kool-aid. They have been main lining it for over 3 years now. It wouldn't surprise me if they are on booster number 8.

I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence that the travel mandates helped anyone or made any sense kgb...

Of course peoples rights were taken away. The right to travel and leave the country. The right to assemble. Etc etc etc. People were locked in hotel rooms against their will who were not under arrest or charged with a crime.

You either forgot about these things, or you are ok with them. Either way, its likely a waste of my time or anyone else's to keep talking to you about this.

Good day.

If you and your like didn’t get it after all that time due to your deep virus knowledge collected on internet here and there, nothing will.

You are then absolutely right by saying “forget about these things/its likely a waste of my time or anyone else's to keep talking to you about this”
(It apply to myself)

[kgb531]

You were welcome travel anywhere in Canada if you were taking up residence in a new province. You were welcome to leave the country anytime you wanted, however other countries would not accept you so you turned back either at a land border or refused boarding by the departing airline to insure you never became another country's problem upon arrival at a foreign airport.
None of these mandates need to make to you. It's not you makes them or enforces them. Courts have been clear about the discretion of authorities in using Section 1.
If Section 1 ran for PM, it would have my vote.

Its not worth your time J Roc. They are past drinking the kool-aid. They have been main lining it for over 3 years now. It wouldn't surprise me if they are on booster number 8.

I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence that the travel mandates helped anyone or made any sense kgb...

Of course peoples rights were taken away. The right to travel and leave the country. The right to assemble. Etc etc etc. People were locked in hotel rooms against their will who were not under arrest or charged with a crime.

You either forgot about these things, or you are ok with them. Either way, its likely a waste of my time or anyone else's to keep talking to you about this.

Good day.

[Inverted2]

Canada is full of right wing anti-vaxxers. Only 5% of the population has gotten the booster juice in the past 6 months. Weren’t the regime leaders and Dr. Scam begging the flock to get boosted to the max last winter?

Straight from the government:

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid ... -coverage/

[khedrei]

You were welcome travel anywhere in Canada if you were taking up residence in a new province. You were welcome to leave the country anytime you wanted, however other countries would not accept you so you turned back either at a land border or refused boarding by the departing airline to insure you never became another country's problem upon arrival at a foreign airport.
None of these mandates need to make to you. It's not you makes them or enforces them. Courts have been clear about the discretion of authorities in using Section 1.
If Section 1 ran for PM, it would have my vote.

Its not worth your time J Roc. They are past drinking the kool-aid. They have been main lining it for over 3 years now. It wouldn't surprise me if they are on booster number 8.

I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence that the travel mandates helped anyone or made any sense kgb...

Of course peoples rights were taken away. The right to travel and leave the country. The right to assemble. Etc etc etc. People were locked in hotel rooms against their will who were not under arrest or charged with a crime.

You either forgot about these things, or you are ok with them. Either way, its likely a waste of my time or anyone else's to keep talking to you about this.

Good day.

Ah, so its a definition thing... to you "travel" means "move".

Got it.

We have already established that you will cheer on article 1 until the time it destroys your life or the life of someone you love. And it doesn't matter what the reason is or if it makes sense. Article 1 applies anytime the "experts" say so. Sad really.

I hope for your sake you wake up. Unlike you, I don't wish illwill upon people who don't agree with me.

[kgb531]

There is no article 1. It is Section 1.
If you don't have a basic grasp of the Charter, perhaps refrain from commenting on the subject matter.
The definition is the Charter's, not mine. Section 6.2 protects the right to a) move to and take up residence in any province; and to b) pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
I'm sorry the facts don't fit your narrative.

You were welcome travel anywhere in Canada if you were taking up residence in a new province. You were welcome to leave the country anytime you wanted, however other countries would not accept you so you turned back either at a land border or refused boarding by the departing airline to insure you never became another country's problem upon arrival at a foreign airport.
None of these mandates need to make to you. It's not you makes them or enforces them. Courts have been clear about the discretion of authorities in using Section 1.
If Section 1 ran for PM, it would have my vote.

Its not worth your time J Roc. They are past drinking the kool-aid. They have been main lining it for over 3 years now. It wouldn't surprise me if they are on booster number 8.

I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence that the travel mandates helped anyone or made any sense kgb...

Of course peoples rights were taken away. The right to travel and leave the country. The right to assemble. Etc etc etc. People were locked in hotel rooms against their will who were not under arrest or charged with a crime.

You either forgot about these things, or you are ok with them. Either way, its likely a waste of my time or anyone else's to keep talking to you about this.

Good day.

Ah, so its a definition thing... to you "travel" means "move".

Got it.

We have already established that you will cheer on article 1 until the time it destroys your life or the life of someone you love. And it doesn't matter what the reason is or if it makes sense. Article 1 applies anytime the "experts" say so. Sad really.

I hope for your sake you wake up. Unlike you, I don't wish illwill upon people who don't agree with me.

[J Roc]

There are no findings. The entire story was just completely made up. Epoch times just preys on weak minded people who are unable to do some basic fact checking.

# 2022-109 Careers, COVID-19

COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-05-30

The grievor received a Recorded Warning (RW) for not complying with the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy, pursuant to the Chief of the Defence Staff’s (CDS) Directives on CAF COVID-19 Vaccination released in October and November 2021. Soon after receiving the RW, the grievor got vaccinated against COVID-19. The grievor contends that the Directives infringed on rights established by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). As redress, the grievor sought acknowledgement from the CAF that their Charter rights had been denied, acknowledgement from the CAF that they did not receive the vaccine of their own free will, and a letter addressing the moral, legal and ethical concerns brought up in their grievance.

There was no Initial Authority decision because the grievance was related to a decision, act or omission by the CDS. 

The Committee conducted an in-depth analysis as to whether the CAF’s COVID-19 vaccination policy breached protected rights under section 7 of the Charter, namely the right to liberty and security of the person. The Committee concluded that the policy infringed on the rights protected under section 7 of the Charter and that the limitations of these rights were not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Committee viewed aspects of the policy as arbitrary and overly broad, and considered its implementation disproportionate. This led to a full analysis of whether such limitations are justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Committee found the CAF had not shown that consideration of the public interest justified the overly broad and disproportionate implementation of the vaccination policy. The Committee found the CAF had not met its obligation to ensure minimal impairment in the implementation of its vaccination policy. The Committee therefore concluded that the limitations were not justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Committee found that the disputed provisions of the CAF’s COVID-19 vaccination policy were contrary to the Charter and as such, unreasonable. Therefore, the Committee found that the grievor had been aggrieved by the CAF’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Additionally, the Committee found that there was a lack of basic procedural fairness in the issuance of the RW and that the process was fundamentally unfair. The Committee noted that the disputed policy had been amended pursuant to CDS Directive 003 on CAF COVID-19 Vaccination, released in 2022, which superseded the previous unreasonable versions from 2021.

The Committee recommended that the RW issued to the grievor be cancelled and removed from their personnel records.


Link - https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlo ... reserved=0

[J Roc]

I spoke with the ATIP Coordinator from the MGERC and you'll be happy to know that several more case summaries will be released this week as well.
They too present findings that Section 1 was not satisfied and that the CAF violated The Charter.

I can post those when they become available.

[CpnCrunch]

I spoke with the ATIP Coordinator from the MGERC and you'll be happy to know that several more case summaries will be released this week as well.
They too present findings that Section 1 was not satisfied and that the CAF violated The Charter.

I can post those when they become available.

I take back what i said. It looks like they did get an exclusive.

[daedalusx]

I spoke with the ATIP Coordinator from the MGERC and you'll be happy to know that several more case summaries will be released this week as well.
They too present findings that Section 1 was not satisfied and that the CAF violated The Charter.

I can post those when they become available.

Any word on back pay ?

[J Roc]

I spoke with the ATIP Coordinator from the MGERC and you'll be happy to know that several more case summaries will be released this week as well.
They too present findings that Section 1 was not satisfied and that the CAF violated The Charter.

I can post those when they become available.

Any word on back pay ?

From what I can tell, this person didn't lose money, rather they took the jab under duress in order to keep their job. The grievance was concerning a RW (recorded warning) on their file and not backpay.

However, this case will most likely address backpay and damages.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hu ... id-vaccine

[khedrei]

There is no article 1. It is Section 1.
If you don't have a basic grasp of the Charter, perhaps refrain from commenting on the subject matter.
The definition is the Charter's, not mine. Section 6.2 protects the right to a) move to and take up residence in any province; and to b) pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
I'm sorry the facts don't fit your narrative.

You were welcome travel anywhere in Canada if you were taking up residence in a new province. You were welcome to leave the country anytime you wanted, however other countries would not accept you so you turned back either at a land border or refused boarding by the departing airline to insure you never became another country's problem upon arrival at a foreign airport.
None of these mandates need to make to you. It's not you makes them or enforces them. Courts have been clear about the discretion of authorities in using Section 1.
If Section 1 ran for PM, it would have my vote.

Ah, so its a definition thing... to you "travel" means "move".

Got it.

We have already established that you will cheer on article 1 until the time it destroys your life or the life of someone you love. And it doesn't matter what the reason is or if it makes sense. Article 1 applies anytime the "experts" say so. Sad really.

I hope for your sake you wake up. Unlike you, I don't wish illwill upon people who don't agree with me.

Section/article, you know what I meant.

And the charter uses the word "move" for what we would normally call "travel". That is obvious because it also uses the term "take up residence" for when we would use the term "move". Movement is what it means.

So don't play word games. My statement regarding us losing rights was true. Yours was not. If you want to argue that the loss of rights was justified, that's a different conversation. But to say we didn't lose them is hogwash.

I've resisted the urge for name calling but you are making it very difficult.

Keep cheering on "Section" 1. Don't come crying to me when they take away something that matters to you. Im not above saying I told you so.