3 ms·

Read the very next paragraph of what you quoted: > After November 30, 2021, all passengers must be fully vaccinated and present valid proof of being fully vacc

Read the very next paragraph of what you quoted: > After November 30, 2021, all passengers must be fully vaccinated and present valid proof of being fully vaccinated, with very limited exceptions. COVID-19 test results will no longer be accepted after this date. > As of November 15, 2021, screening officers will be conducting random proof of vaccination checks of non-passengers at CATSA security screening checkpoints. The checks will take place at 15 airports located in Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, Toronto (Pearson International and Billy Bishop), Ottawa, Montreal (Trudeau), Quebec City, and St. John’s. Upon request, non-passengers will be required to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 in order to enter an airport’s restricted area. I know about this because I have an ongoing lawsuit with the Canadian government.

ModernMech 5y ago
> with very limited exceptions. So again not a mandate. Good luck on your lawsuit, you'll need it. edit: Since you called me dishonest, I'll explain exactly why I think you'll need luck on your lawsuit: I understand you are highly charged about this issue due to your being involved in a lawsuit, so you seem to be in litigation attack mode. That's understandable. But calling the other side dishonest and not worthy of engagement won't serve you or your lawyer well in a court of law, so you might as well get used to being challenged without taking it personally. Based on what you've posted here it seems like you feel the vaccine requirements are discriminatory and unfair because they restrict people from gaining access to essential services like air travel. Yet the links you provide have shown that the Canadian government 1. Had an extended period of time when unvaccinated people could travel with a test to give them time to get vaccinated. 2. Have now moved to a phase where they don't accept tests but still have exceptions to vaccination 3. Those exceptions are specifically designed to accommodate people who rely on air travel for an essential service. 4. There are exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated 5. There are exceptions for people in the process of getting vaccinated 6. There are options for you to travel if you cannot get vaccinated, making air travel not essential in that case, so your argument falls apart there. I have no idea how this would hold up in court, obviously I'm not a lawyer. But the government is going to argue that they have the right to set public health policy (true), they have made accommodations (true), there are exceptions (true), and for anyone whom air travel is essential there are further accommodations (true). For the sake of your case, I hope your lawyer presents your arguments in court better than you have presented them here, because I'm not convinced.
- busymom0 5y ago
  > So again not a mandate https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/10/mandatory-covid-19-vaccination-requirements-for-federally-regulated-transportation-employees-and-travellers.html https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/10/manda... Look at what the government calls it: "Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federally regulated transportation employees and travellers" Notice the "Mandatory". You are being purposefully dishonest. This discussion is not worth proceeding.
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    I admire your detailed and thorough analysis. Don't let those with an agenda tamp your energy. Your posts present the most concentrated unbiased information I've seen in any thread about COVID. Using unbiased information for biased purposes (a lawsuit) does not make the information biased.
  - soperj 5y ago
    Mandatory doesn't mean that it's been mandated. They're two separate words with separate meanings. but you're right about this: >This discussion is not worth proceeding.

ModernMech 5y ago

> with very limited exceptions. So again not a mandate. Good luck on your lawsuit, you'll need it. edit: Since you called me dishonest, I'll explain exactly why I think you'll need luck on your lawsuit: I understand you are highly charged about this issue due to your being involved in a lawsuit, so you seem to be in litigation attack mode. That's understandable. But calling the other side dishonest and not worthy of engagement won't serve you or your lawyer well in a court of law, so you might as well get used to being challenged without taking it personally. Based on what you've posted here it seems like you feel the vaccine requirements are discriminatory and unfair because they restrict people from gaining access to essential services like air travel. Yet the links you provide have shown that the Canadian government 1. Had an extended period of time when unvaccinated people could travel with a test to give them time to get vaccinated. 2. Have now moved to a phase where they don't accept tests but still have exceptions to vaccination 3. Those exceptions are specifically designed to accommodate people who rely on air travel for an essential service. 4. There are exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated 5. There are exceptions for people in the process of getting vaccinated 6. There are options for you to travel if you cannot get vaccinated, making air travel not essential in that case, so your argument falls apart there. I have no idea how this would hold up in court, obviously I'm not a lawyer. But the government is going to argue that they have the right to set public health policy (true), they have made accommodations (true), there are exceptions (true), and for anyone whom air travel is essential there are further accommodations (true). For the sake of your case, I hope your lawyer presents your arguments in court better than you have presented them here, because I'm not convinced.

busymom0 5y ago
> So again not a mandate https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/10/mandatory-covid-19-vaccination-requirements-for-federally-regulated-transportation-employees-and-travellers.html https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/10/manda... Look at what the government calls it: "Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federally regulated transportation employees and travellers" Notice the "Mandatory". You are being purposefully dishonest. This discussion is not worth proceeding.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  I admire your detailed and thorough analysis. Don't let those with an agenda tamp your energy. Your posts present the most concentrated unbiased information I've seen in any thread about COVID. Using unbiased information for biased purposes (a lawsuit) does not make the information biased.
- soperj 5y ago
  Mandatory doesn't mean that it's been mandated. They're two separate words with separate meanings. but you're right about this: >This discussion is not worth proceeding.