Charter freedoms aren’t absolute
By Letter to the Editor on September 18, 2021.
Editor:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, Section 1 – The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography because they prevent harm to the individual or to community-held values, Section 1, pg. 2.
Section 2 of the Charter deals with Freedom of Assembly. This freedom also is not absolute. If harm can be proven, limits on freedom can be justified. There are several streams of evidence that prove lack of vaccination cause sickness and death: to those not vaccinated; to the vaccinated but infected with a variant and underlying serious health conditions and; because the hospitalized have long 23-day stays in hospital. They keep others living in serious pain that surgery could treat.
So what is the crime the unvaccinated are guilty of? Is it felony manslaughter or only the misdemeanour of criminal negligence causing death? Dozens of those pushing fentanyl when a death results are being charged with manslaughter with varying results, including guilty.
When an Alberta congregation refused social distancing, they didn’t lock up the congregation, only the pastor. When Albertans refused to get vaccinated, guess who should get locked up? Someone who refuses to legislate vaccination.
Philip Jorgensen
Lethbridge
-1
…ughhhh.
the letter references the cdn charter of rights, but then references usa categories of crime. moreover, what nonsense. .
by this “logic”, we can charge with manslaughter, or perhaps even 2nd degree murder, everyone that uses cell phones, computers…pretty much most electronics…given the effects of mining the products necessary, the transference of electric charges, the “disposal” of said products, which amounts to dumping toxins into our earth, water and air, as all of this contributes to cancers and other deadly health issues. ditto refined sugar producer and sellers, in all manner, as the impact on health is often deadly.
what we do know by now is that our charter rights and freedoms are subject to the whims of the day, and guarantee the individual very little…other than the right to carry papers so you can produce them when they are demanded. even fundamental rights that survive frequent nonsense interpretations can get beaten down by the ridiculous notwithstanding clause.
indeed, it is that which has enabled quebec to run roughshod on human rights and dignity since 1982. (off topic, but if quebec is a nation, and one that openly and flagrantly discriminates against all that are not pure laine quebecois, why is canada giving it multibillions of dollars a year in equalisation handouts?)
the only absolutes are death and taxes. every thing else is at the whim of who ever is in power
“the only absolutes are death and taxes” — That is true, and let’s not forget that a loved-one of each of the 29 COVID-19 patients who died between 4:30 pm on Sunday and 4:30 pm on Monday, will need to file a 2021 tax return on behalf of their deceased relative.
i suppose the most difficult thing for lovers of autocratic govt to accept – especially when whipped by fear and insecurity – is the following: my rights end where your body begins, and thus, your rights end where my body begins. without this most basic and inalienable right being observed and protected, there is hardly a basis remaining for a free society.
Not sure that there’s anyone that posts up in here that is “Pro Autocratic”.
Understanding that Canada in particular has managed the last century with nothing even vaguely close to autocratic government (Unless one counts political effects caused by a region’s larger voter share Eg. Ontario/Quebec vs. everywhere else).
As most discourse I’ve seen from either side of the “fence” in this forum does not reflect that. But that is all an aside.
My real question (Always burning in my mind these days) is for the people who are part of the “My body, my right” group that participates in the protests against vaccines, or the mandates.
How does one’s choice based on “My body. My right” square with the question of abortion?
It seems a double standard.
You refer to those who think it reasonable that some individual rights (which aren’t even inalienable in the US) are limited in the interests of the collective as “lovers of autocratic govt” — Really? That’s quite a stretch?
To paraphrase one of my favoruite quotes from Captain Woodrow F. Call in “Lonesome Dove” (both the novel and miniseries): “I hate imprecision and unmeasured hyperbole in a man. It’s hard to tolerate.”
not sure about others, but my basis for being pro choice is exactly that: my body my choice.
that said, i hope some might share their thoughts as to the idea that the rights of one end at the nose of another. i get the sense many feel a govt has the right to force people to ingest that which they do not wish to take – and that is the reality of what is now happening. is it not utterly coercive to create 2 classes of people?: with the covid vaxed having full rights and the unvaxed by choice having restricted rights. that reality does much to undermine one’s true freedom to choose.
by the collective i believe one is referring to society: again, the rights of society extend only to the nose of each person: govt/society/collective do not get to impose on one’s body nor their privacy. as for the curious use of the collective to refer to society, are we are all so equal? you, me, females and sexual and racial minorities, the mccains and irvings and bronfmans and peladeaus and simards. I get it. however, in exalting the interests of the collective, such that it is effectively forcing people to ingest something they do not want or else, that is indeed a major tenet of autocracy. and why not: most have been wearing and sitting on and using sundry products coming from the world’s favourite autocracy, china. I suppose it really has come to pass that we are what we wear.
here is an odd thought. imagine if a woman’s freedom to her body meant that in exercising her right to abort, she is condemned with restrictions… i know i know i know this is going to sound absurd in such a free society as is ours…but just suppose, in exercising her right to choose to abort she is thus rendered no longer able to work in any govt job, or for any employer that is no choice and decides they do not want her type, and for the heck of it, let’s stretch it out some more and say she is no longer allowed into restaurants and bars and gyms and concerts and theatres. we could enforce that by branding a scarlet A on her forehead, just like we could mark the covid unvaxed as well, except rather than an A we use use an upside down V. as fun and legal as that may be, we could then apply such restrictions to anyone that is not exercising their free choice the “right way”. even if that limits freedom too much, at the very least ve vill have order and security will follow.
🍅and🍊Biff.
A woman’s choice to abort is hers and hers alone. The consequences for the population around her are not compromised – other than the self righteous – who fall over themselves in condemnation and attempt (as in Texas) to overturn Roe verses Wade.
Individuals refusing vaccination and going maskless are contributing to the perpetuation of what should have been a manageable outbreak by now. Low vaccine uptake , the rise of the variant, convoluted messaging from Kenney et al, maskless gatherings leading to what? Hospitals overloaded with mainly unvaccinated individuals (yes I know there are “breakthrough” cases) and the very real potential for patients having had a heart attack, waking up in Toronto.
Front line care givers/health care workers who refuse vaccination (who are not health compromised themselves) , should not be permitted to work in their usual work environment. This is seen by many as an intrusion into their rights, I would respectfully disagree.
if it comes to forced vaccination, and I fear for my life, can I kill the person forced to vaccinate me?
haha – extreme, but arguable.
See my reply to Biff.
haha…loving the apples and oranges 🙂 each are good for us, too
seeing as the apples/oranges derived from my take that those comparing the polio outbreak to covid were incorrect, i now believe i was wrong and the comparison is reasonable. this came about after i watched an “american experience” episode on polio, and then doing a little further reading. where polio and covid are similar is with regard to the relative few that succumbed or had severe outcomes, and, that in each case the public was whipped into a state of reactive and thoughtless fear by the usual bedfellows: yellow journalism, and govts and their love of propaganda. i have not found hard numbers on the total infected and total deaths and total paralysis; however, what is known as the cutter incident may shed light on the percentages. “In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.”
the numbers are telling: 200 of 40,000 “varying degrees” of paralysis, and 10 deaths out of 40,000. while it would suck to be one of the 200 or the 10, the odds are pretty good of being one of the 39,790 of the 40,000 that had no serious outcomes.
while a mistake, the “cure” proved as bad as or worse than the disease. it is not the first time pharm has performed as poorly. no wonder they always get immunity from liability whenever and however they can. that pharm “has always been granted immunity from liability with regard to vaxes” is hardly confidence inspiring. however, am i or a public body…or a mob referencing themselves as “the collective” to force people to not take a vax, or whatever they wish to ingest? absolutely not – just as neither of those has any right to force ingestion of anything.
i suspect many not taking the covid vaxes are on to a similar belief: that the chances of having a serious bout with covid are very low, and they feel more comfortable with those odds than with the vaxes. how is that not their right, anyone’s right to choose what goes into their body?
when i have more time, i would like to respond further to your entry; hope you will check back. however we do not see things eye to eye, i really appreciate what you bring to the pursuit of knowing and truth. thank you. and, if i have noted this before, i have appreciated your pics of nature that you have submitted now and again – beautiful!
On most things we do see eye to eye but on this we must agree to disagree. Perhaps FDR would disagree also re polio and the thousands of persons whom became paralyzed or spent time in an Iron Lung. Both yourself I think and almost certainly Plushie are of the opinion that this is not a severe disease and that a persons individual choice is sacrosanct which in many cases is true but not in this case. In this case the rights of the many outweigh the rights of an individual. (Herd Immunity)
When morons like those at a recent Covid party in Alberta which have resulted in hospitalizations including ICU admissions , thus denying possibly someone older with a cardiac event, the right to admission and life saving procedures and all because of these unvaccinated pratts choice to whoop it up with a bunch of like minded “people”, things must change.
Fact is vaccinated verses unvaccinated admissions prove the value of vaccination , especially when applied to the entire population. P’s attempt to use figures (from Mass) to prove otherwise was typical of those using one set of figures amongst many . In reality those admitted were by far and away unvaccinated or partially vaccinated.
Even today in Alberta the chances of being admitted to ICUs are 40 times greater when unvaccinated and 15 times greater for acute care. (Unless you disbelieve the recent AHS data release). A person , unvaccinated of course under the age of 20, is now dead.
Most of the vaccine breakthroughs (with some exceptions) are immune compromised or seriously ill with so called “co morbidities” yet these numbers are used incessantly to “prove” the uselessness of vaccines.
Without a more robust uptake of vaccines this “crushed virus” is going to be around for very long time and not simply like the flu, far from It. To beat this virus , we must all pull together. Another 1600 plus cases today alone and people, waking up in a place far away from where they were a mere day ago.
Buckle up folks!
Thanks for your kind remarks re the nature pics. (Not exactly nature but the meteor photo was one of my all times favs!)
John, thank you for your reply but please check out Israel where 60% of the infected are on the third booster. And doctors are saying that it should be examined
Yes Israel seemingly is a case study of poor vaccine performance. But dig a little deeper and you’ll find that those over 60 doubly vaccinated are 9 times LESS LIKELY TO DEVELOP SERIOUS DISEASE. THOSE UNDER 60 are about twice as likely TO NOT DEVELOP SERIOUS DISEASE if they are vaccinated. Many in Israel were vaccinated over 5 months ago and the vaccine’s immunity waned – as do all vaccines – right at the time the Delta was making incursions with devastating effects.
A greater proportion of those doubly vaccinated and with COVID SYMPTOMS had multiple co-morbidities , a known cause of vaccine “breakthroughs”.
Early release of masking and crowd restrictions also contributed, not unlike Kenney and his minions.
john, not sure the degree to which phlush deems covid serious. to me, it is serious for those that have a serious bout; however, like the polio experience as i have noted here, coivd is serious for a relative few. that said, even it were serious the other way around – for almost everyone, rather than not – i continue to stand for the utter and inalienable right for each alone to decide what they ingest or do not ingest…and, extending to any and all decisions that would alter one’s body.
the basis of this issue is not whether covid or any other disease is serious, and it is not about whether the covid vaxes are effective or not, or whether they are safe or even toxic. the basis is strictly about who holds the right to one’s body. and, if we are to each hold that right – which i adamantly insist we each do and must therefore always without exception – then absolutely nothing can ever be an exception that obfuscates or compromises that right.
as usual you provide keen observation – in a nutshell, kenney in effect declared covid over back in july…another lie from a politician, and lying – along with corruption and graft and self service – has long been something the electorate have been conditioned to accept as normal and even desirable. desirable, of course, only when it is performed by the people wearing one’s most favourite political team’s sweater. of course, lying is nothing new for big corp/pharma, either.
that aside, you have in your thoughtful entry combined the acts of refusing vaxes and masklessness; as i am ok with masks and spacing, as are others that have not vaxed, perhaps we can, notwithstanding those that are out on the wings, consider only the idea of forcing people to ingest that which they do not wish to ingest. there has been much debate on the topic already with the likes of fluoride being added to public water (which i do not agree with, and firmly believe only that which makes the water potable should be added as water is a public need…and fluoride, minerals, metals, vitamins, meds and stimulants can all be ingested via other means on a personal taste and as need basis…as the incessant-to-a-brainwash-degree advertising says: “ask your doctor about…” any and all things one can ingest to be their very most medicated self).
i have said in that debate and with this one that if there were a substance that made everyone utterly healthy and utterly perfect in every way – it must still remain a choice: and not a forced, coerced or otherwise mandated take it or else reality; for then it is no longer actually a freedom but a law that, when not followed, comes with consequences.
such a product, like the vaxes, could be argued to be in the best interest of all, saving lives forever and ever, preventing accidents, and acts of malice, even. perhaps the only accidents would come from people tripping over one another in a rush to be the one getting to do an act of good ahead of another. however, would we not lose the essence of our humanity once bereft of choice? and then, without being able to exercise choices with regard to fundamental rights, such as the right to be the sole arbiter to our body, do we also not lose that which underwrites a most fundamental freedom?
it appears to me people are so busy embracing A.I., and loving the black and white realm of perfection and the machine, that that is what is coming to bear: we can be better – perfect, even – as machines running on AI. (indeed, there are freaks that are working tirelessly to make us just that, even trying to capture the essence of the soul and placing it in robotic host – i kid you not; and elon musk is more a freak than a saviour – such that one could conceivably live forever in ostensible perfection. talk about creating a living hell).
i think it is a considerable mistake to confuse herd immunity with herd mentality, just as it is to refer to society as “the collective”, especially when it acts out like a bully and a mob.
therefore, i ask again: how does any person, agency, govt, or society at large (mob or otherwise) get to dictate to another body what that body can or cannot ingest? pardon a little hyperbole here, but consider that when that door is opened under any circumstance – as is the case with any door when opened only briefly – there is no way to prevent all else that is in the prevailing wind from entering. how soon thereafter are we all dressed like the man from glad and robotically responding to constant direction and mantras from without. i suggest that when we make exceptions to the bedrocks of freedom – such as the absolute right to our body – we come to make freedom the exception.
So then to take that argument further, motor cycle helmets (my choice to wear or not), seat belts (my choice to wear or not), abstaining from driving whilst “over the limit” (my choice or not) smoking within a certain distance of a public building (my choice or not), speeding through a school zone (again, “my choice or not”). Some of these examples are of no consequence to others , whilst some certainly can be demonstrably disastrous , if not fatal. These are all sound laws for which ultimately we all benefit. Whether I like to speed is irrelevant . (Which I do BTW and have on occasion suffered the consequences). And yes we are in effect told what we should be doing, otherwise there would be chaos in the roads either for individuals or innocent by standers.
great queries, john, thank you. in the quick, besides the fact that vax passports violate a person’s right to private medical records, the difference between those examples and forcing, coercing, banning, firing and not hiring covid unvaxed is that none of those laws requires a person to ingest something they do not want. moreover, they are applied uniformly, and do not create an exclusive group and a lesser group, such as the difference in rights and freedoms now between covid vaxed and not vaxed. no one group is having its degree of citizenship and quality of life undermined/compromised. most important is none of these infringe upon having the sole right to our body. put bluntly, the freedom/security/rights of a person, and of society as a whole, does not and cannot extend into the realm of one’s body. we must each be free to ingest or not ingest whatever we wish, no matter how stupid or risky or even how much it might help another any of that may seem. it is utterly reasonable to expect that diseases abound and are transmitted. we can each take the precautions we feel best. we cannot in a free society force anyone to ingest or alter their body because we hope to protect another.
that said, knowingly using one’s body to infringe on the freedom/security/rights of another is a different story, and unacceptable. if i know or am pretty certain i am carrying a high risk illness, and i am not taking reasonable precautions to protect another, i deserve consequences. there have been numerous cases where people, who knew they had aids, had unprotected sex with others, and also did not tell the partners that they have aids. rightfully, many of those convicted were handed significant sentences. thus, second hand smoke can be limited whereby no one wishing to ingest it can be protected by laws.
( here are responses to some of your examples, hoping that it further helps shed light on my perspective: second hand smoke is the movement of purposefully emitting a product that is known to be detrimental to an unwilling recipient. restricting that is a legit law. however, there should not be a law that prevents adults from congregating indoors where smoking is desired; and, by attending, one is agreeing to the conditions. the current outdoor limits are reasonable, but again, outdoor patios that are adult only should be able to declare themselves or areas as smoking. helmet laws i feel are restrictive for adults. i am not saying they do not save lives -they do! however, only the person not wearing a helmet is at any additional risk. with seatbelts, it can reasonably be argued that an adult can become a projectile and injure/kill another via ejection, or as a consequence of violent movement upon another in the same vehicle. not sure why helmets are not chosen to be worn in cars. must be hairdo concerns. speed control laws are legit because they make driving safer for everyone, they are applied uniformly, and they do not force one to ingest anything one does not want. although you did not bring up plants and fungi and chemical compounds that folk may wish to use for pain relief, medicine, recreation, mood influences, energy, relaxation, contemplation, spirituality, creativity, sleep, etc., i have also argued that none of that can be made illegal for a willing adult. it is not a question as to whether the use of anything is seen as unhealthy, dangerous, against the will of god, stupid etc. it is a necessity that one is able to ingest whatever the heck they wish. now, that being said, one is forever responsible for their behaviour choices: just as with liquor related behaviour, we cannot infringe upon another.)