3 ms·
Constitutional freedoms in Canada are different, and more limited (though this is subjective, a massive door is left open to any limits that may be “justified i
by amscanne 5y ago
Constitutional freedoms in Canada are different, and more limited (though this is subjective, a massive door is left open to any limits that may be “justified in a free and democratic society”… so no guarantees). For me, its been a bit shocking at how blatant the Federal and Provincial governments have disregarded them during COVID without compelling evidence: large-scale Provincial border closures, blanket curfews, an effective entrance tax (mandatory two day quarantine hotel paid up front, even when vaxxed and returning to an empty home), mass data collection by health authorities with no privacy oversight, vax requirements even for essential businesses (in Quebec), etc.
There have been a few surprising individual cases like this as well, e.g. a man in Quebec (IIRC) losing visitation rights since he is not vaxxed, a man in Alberta being ordered by the court to say specific things about vaccines, etc.
Unfortunately, even when challenged, the couple cases I paid attention to found judges biased towards allowing government action (even when no real evidence is available to support that, just vague public health justifications) since they must only determine that it is “justified in a free and democratic society” and it’s not a charter violation. More saddening is the fact that these measures are broadly popular, and I’m sure most of my friends and family don’t even see these are a fundament impingement of their rights.
- jevoten 5y ago> a man in Alberta being ordered by the court to say specific things about vaccines Could you expand on this? It sounds even more outrageous than this case.
- amscanne 5y agoHere is the case: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-an-alberta-courts-wrongheaded-order-to-compel-anti-vaxxers-to-refute-their-own-opinions https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-an-alberta-courts-w... I don’t have any sympathy towards this guy for his actions or his views, but it strikes me as over the line to have a court order that if they share any views on vaccines they must include a disclaimer that their thoughts “may not be held by medical experts and what the majority of medical experts are recommending regarding vaccination and physical distancing”. How on earth is it okay for a judge to get to “creative” like that, especially when it’s in violation of charter rights?