8 ms·

Unvaccinated Canadians older than five who have to quarantine for fourteen days. A 14 day quarantine for an endemic virus just as present in Canada as anywhere

Unvaccinated Canadians older than five who have to quarantine for fourteen days. A 14 day quarantine for an endemic virus just as present in Canada as anywhere else is a de facto prohibition.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Well, maybe they should get vaccinated then.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  Point stands they’re barred entry. Look, I get it. They’re icky and Canada has a long history of denying or trying to deny entry to “icky” ppl. Mediterraneans, Asians, Eminem (though I forgot about that one eh?). Canada has just a long list of things its apologized for. Like barring entry to Mediterraneans, Asians and Eminem.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    Comparing racial exclusion and barring felons to how unvaccinated people are being treated is some seriously disingenous nonsense. > Look, I get it No, you don't.
corry 5y ago
Quarantine != "barred". Perhaps inconvenient to the point of rethinking the trip, yes, but that's different than a citizen being denied the right of return by their government. And even that inconvenience can be removed with a free, safe shot that takes 30 seconds to get for those that aren't prevented by some other health condition.
- Spinnaker_ 5y ago
  Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford, one of the men who helped draft our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is suing the government, claiming that these travel restrictions on Canadian citizens are unconstitutional. It's a pretty remarkable situation to have someone who wrote our constitution pointing out that the government is in error.
  - notafraudster 5y ago
    Peckford didn't really contribute to drafting the charter in its relevant portions here, though he had peripheral involvement in its contours as a premier of a province during the period it was negotiated and as part of the basis for the Kitchen Accord that led to s.33. His major position on the constitutional negotiations as a whole was mostly a losing position. So it's a little like arguing the anti-federalists had unique constitutional insight in the U.S. Especially given that the constitution was shortly relitigated vis-a-vis Meech Lake and Charlottetown and the heirs to Peckford's position... lost again! After losing election in Newfoundland (thanks partially to betting the province's economic future on hydroponic cucumbers -- a little surprising that didn't work!) he left the province, and he's had no real involvement in politics since except to endorse the far-right political party in the last election and become a professional anti-vaxxer, as you note. I think the appeal to authority here is odd. Whether Peckford has a legal point on the travel restrictions or not, it's not because he was ostensibly in the room when the finer points of the constitution were hammered out. The whole point of the Court Challenges Program and other measures was because everyone -- the legal profession, the provinces, the federal government, and interest groups -- believed that the charter required extensive jurisprudence to understand. I doubt Peckford wins as the case works its way through; the dominant policy view on the Charter and the court is basically dialogue theory, that the court exists primarily to work affirmatively with the government and that even when the court strikes government policies it typically does so in a cooperative way. The court is largely deferent to state interests. This deference is built right into s.1, which is why charter rights are subject to s.1. But even beyond that, the court has already circumscribed s.6(1) rights e.g. in Divito v. Canada (which held that, for example, citizens are not entitled to prison transfers to serve international sentences domestically; both because the state has an s.1 interest in limiting such rights and because s.6(1) isn't that expansive to begin with). The court has never held, e.g., that s.6(1) grants an affirmative right to fly, or an affirmative right to fly without ID, or even an affirmative right to get a passport without following instructions. The alternative argument is some kind of nonsense s.7 argument which would clearly crumble when applying s.1. I suspect they would decline to rule in Peckford's favour here, they aren't in the business of whole cloth concocting these kinds of affirmative rights. The most likely vote would be 8-1 or 9-0, with maybe Brown dissenting? Of course Peckford being legally incorrect doesn't mean he has no point from a moral or policy standpoint. Totally reasonable to say "I think Peckford's point is well taken." Just think the bizarre invocation of him as a legal authority doesn't hold up at all.
yohannparis 5y ago
Nope it is not, this is an abuse of the term "prohibition".
kstenerud 5y ago
Yes, so they don't contribute to the clogging of hospitals (90% of COVID related hospitalizations are unvaccinated people). Stop being so selfish and get vaccinated.
- zapdrive 5y ago
  Not all unvaccinated people end up in a hospital though. So aren't we discriminating against them? It's equivalent to saying that lets bar all male Canadian citizens from entering Canada, since over 90% of rapes are committed by men!
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    > Not all unvaccinated people end up in a hospital though. So aren't we discriminating against them? We absolutely are, and I applaud the effort. If they were fighting against rabies or measles or tetanus vaccinations, I'd say "Good on you! Do your part to clean out the shallow end of the gene pool." But once their stupidity endangers others, we as civilized people step in and stop them. When unvaccinated COVID patients flood the hospitals, it means that other people with serious or life threatening medical situations can't get the quality treatment they need. At this point, the antivax stupidity crosses over into danger-to-society. So yeah, block them until they no longer pose a threat.
    - zapdrive 5y ago
      So you'll be ok with barring all male Canadian citizens from entering Canada as well?
    - logifail 5y ago
      > When unvaccinated COVID patients flood the hospitals [..] In our part of the world, despite eye-watering infection rates over the last few weeks, hospitals are absolutely nowhere near capacity (and that's putting it mildly). Were younger and fitter people really flooding hospitals if they got Covid? Thought the data on age and comorbidities is pretty clear and has been for a while now.[0][1] [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7... [1] https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/11/2224/5873904 https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/11/222...
fuzzer37 5y ago
Just get vaccinated. It takes, like, 5 minutes.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  Just comply and the regime will not threaten you is not really how a free person thinks.
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  No. It is immoral for a healthy, COVID recovered man to get a vaccine best used in the third world. To travel, and get around my moral qualms, I signed up for a vaccine trial. I was refused or got the placebo.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    I've heard this spin multiple times. Fun fact - people who live or have lived in disease-plagued areas of the world are far more likely to willingly adhere to guidelines on masks, isolation, and the like, because they've seen, firsthand, the devastating effect of pandemics and epidemics. Let's not pretend for one moment that your average antivaxxer in the US or Canada is in any way on some sort of moral crusade for the third world. It's just a "better" reason than "because I'm selfish".
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    The vaccine reserved for you did not go to the third world instead.
    - tagoregrtst 5y ago
      I’ll help your argument out and make it stronger (because “reserved” vaccines have indeed been shipped overseas): Once a vial is opened the vaccines contained therein can’t be shipped overseas and will expire in a few hours. I could therefore wait outside a Walgreens before closing and get the shot. Except Im not a utilitarian. I cannot take what is rightfully another’s just because they cant enjoy it. I believe that all young people should have refused the shot, therefore liberating millions of doses. Mine is but the first (literal) drop in what should be an ocean; and Im actively encouraging my friends to do the moral thing and refuse to get boosted.
go_blue_13 5y ago
they can go get the safe, effective vaccine for free so they don't have to quarantine
mywittyname 5y ago
Quarantine procedures were in place during Zika and Ebola outbreaks as well. And those procedures were substantially more harsh. Major metro hospitals had quarantine facilities brought in for Ebola. Patients were shoved into a mobile field hospital for 14 days. Not a single protest happened for that. The takeaway here is that none of this is new. People are mostly just pissed off that the quarantine procedures now apply to them. It was a-okay when other people were shoved into isolation tanks because, "that's what happens when you go to Africa."
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  Right, but the virus was contained. A quarantine when you have as much COVID as anyone is petty.
  - manquer 5y ago
    Effectiveness is not metric that changes legality. A lot of government policy is ineffective does not make it illegal or unconstitutional .
    - FpUser 5y ago
      When the rights are infringed upon just for the fuck of it without solid proof that it is to prevent endangering large amount of lives - maybe it is technically legal but I think it is crime.
      - manquer 5y ago
        You can make it illegal and actually a crime. The democratic way to make it one is either make that point democratically elected leaders in a civilized manner or vote against them next election and organize into parties/block to influence policy. Terrorizing and hold regular people hostage with noise pollution, blockade and disrupt their lives is what revolutionary/terrorist organization would do. If protestors behave like terrorists and insurgents then sooner or later they will be treated like one.
seattle_spring 5y ago
Gosh, that's a really tough position to be in. If only there was something they could do to be exempt from the 14 day quarantine. Anything at all.
- hanselot 5y ago
FireBeyond 5y ago
Upstream in this thread we have "it's not torture because no-one is making those residents who live in the area stay" - because of course, they all can afford the time and effort to go stay in a hotel out of the area for a few weeks... Here we have "oh, well, it might as well be a ban, if you're going to inconvenience someone for a few weeks".

Unvaccinated Canadians older than five who have to quarantine for fourteen days. A 14 day quarantine for an endemic virus just as present in Canada as anywhere else is a de facto prohibition.

beaconstudios 5y ago

Well, maybe they should get vaccinated then.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tagoregrtst 5y ago
Point stands they’re barred entry. Look, I get it. They’re icky and Canada has a long history of denying or trying to deny entry to “icky” ppl. Mediterraneans, Asians, Eminem (though I forgot about that one eh?). Canada has just a long list of things its apologized for. Like barring entry to Mediterraneans, Asians and Eminem.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  Comparing racial exclusion and barring felons to how unvaccinated people are being treated is some seriously disingenous nonsense. > Look, I get it No, you don't.

corry 5y ago

Quarantine != "barred". Perhaps inconvenient to the point of rethinking the trip, yes, but that's different than a citizen being denied the right of return by their government. And even that inconvenience can be removed with a free, safe shot that takes 30 seconds to get for those that aren't prevented by some other health condition.

Spinnaker_ 5y ago
Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford, one of the men who helped draft our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is suing the government, claiming that these travel restrictions on Canadian citizens are unconstitutional. It's a pretty remarkable situation to have someone who wrote our constitution pointing out that the government is in error.
- notafraudster 5y ago
  Peckford didn't really contribute to drafting the charter in its relevant portions here, though he had peripheral involvement in its contours as a premier of a province during the period it was negotiated and as part of the basis for the Kitchen Accord that led to s.33. His major position on the constitutional negotiations as a whole was mostly a losing position. So it's a little like arguing the anti-federalists had unique constitutional insight in the U.S. Especially given that the constitution was shortly relitigated vis-a-vis Meech Lake and Charlottetown and the heirs to Peckford's position... lost again! After losing election in Newfoundland (thanks partially to betting the province's economic future on hydroponic cucumbers -- a little surprising that didn't work!) he left the province, and he's had no real involvement in politics since except to endorse the far-right political party in the last election and become a professional anti-vaxxer, as you note. I think the appeal to authority here is odd. Whether Peckford has a legal point on the travel restrictions or not, it's not because he was ostensibly in the room when the finer points of the constitution were hammered out. The whole point of the Court Challenges Program and other measures was because everyone -- the legal profession, the provinces, the federal government, and interest groups -- believed that the charter required extensive jurisprudence to understand. I doubt Peckford wins as the case works its way through; the dominant policy view on the Charter and the court is basically dialogue theory, that the court exists primarily to work affirmatively with the government and that even when the court strikes government policies it typically does so in a cooperative way. The court is largely deferent to state interests. This deference is built right into s.1, which is why charter rights are subject to s.1. But even beyond that, the court has already circumscribed s.6(1) rights e.g. in Divito v. Canada (which held that, for example, citizens are not entitled to prison transfers to serve international sentences domestically; both because the state has an s.1 interest in limiting such rights and because s.6(1) isn't that expansive to begin with). The court has never held, e.g., that s.6(1) grants an affirmative right to fly, or an affirmative right to fly without ID, or even an affirmative right to get a passport without following instructions. The alternative argument is some kind of nonsense s.7 argument which would clearly crumble when applying s.1. I suspect they would decline to rule in Peckford's favour here, they aren't in the business of whole cloth concocting these kinds of affirmative rights. The most likely vote would be 8-1 or 9-0, with maybe Brown dissenting? Of course Peckford being legally incorrect doesn't mean he has no point from a moral or policy standpoint. Totally reasonable to say "I think Peckford's point is well taken." Just think the bizarre invocation of him as a legal authority doesn't hold up at all.

yohannparis 5y ago

Nope it is not, this is an abuse of the term "prohibition".

kstenerud 5y ago

Yes, so they don't contribute to the clogging of hospitals (90% of COVID related hospitalizations are unvaccinated people). Stop being so selfish and get vaccinated.

zapdrive 5y ago
Not all unvaccinated people end up in a hospital though. So aren't we discriminating against them? It's equivalent to saying that lets bar all male Canadian citizens from entering Canada, since over 90% of rapes are committed by men!
- kstenerud 5y ago
  > Not all unvaccinated people end up in a hospital though. So aren't we discriminating against them? We absolutely are, and I applaud the effort. If they were fighting against rabies or measles or tetanus vaccinations, I'd say "Good on you! Do your part to clean out the shallow end of the gene pool." But once their stupidity endangers others, we as civilized people step in and stop them. When unvaccinated COVID patients flood the hospitals, it means that other people with serious or life threatening medical situations can't get the quality treatment they need. At this point, the antivax stupidity crosses over into danger-to-society. So yeah, block them until they no longer pose a threat.
  - zapdrive 5y ago
    So you'll be ok with barring all male Canadian citizens from entering Canada as well?
  - logifail 5y ago
    > When unvaccinated COVID patients flood the hospitals [..] In our part of the world, despite eye-watering infection rates over the last few weeks, hospitals are absolutely nowhere near capacity (and that's putting it mildly). Were younger and fitter people really flooding hospitals if they got Covid? Thought the data on age and comorbidities is pretty clear and has been for a while now.[0][1] [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7... [1] https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/11/2224/5873904 https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/11/222...

fuzzer37 5y ago

Just get vaccinated. It takes, like, 5 minutes.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
Just comply and the regime will not threaten you is not really how a free person thinks.
tagoregrtst 5y ago
No. It is immoral for a healthy, COVID recovered man to get a vaccine best used in the third world. To travel, and get around my moral qualms, I signed up for a vaccine trial. I was refused or got the placebo.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  I've heard this spin multiple times. Fun fact - people who live or have lived in disease-plagued areas of the world are far more likely to willingly adhere to guidelines on masks, isolation, and the like, because they've seen, firsthand, the devastating effect of pandemics and epidemics. Let's not pretend for one moment that your average antivaxxer in the US or Canada is in any way on some sort of moral crusade for the third world. It's just a "better" reason than "because I'm selfish".
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  The vaccine reserved for you did not go to the third world instead.
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    I’ll help your argument out and make it stronger (because “reserved” vaccines have indeed been shipped overseas): Once a vial is opened the vaccines contained therein can’t be shipped overseas and will expire in a few hours. I could therefore wait outside a Walgreens before closing and get the shot. Except Im not a utilitarian. I cannot take what is rightfully another’s just because they cant enjoy it. I believe that all young people should have refused the shot, therefore liberating millions of doses. Mine is but the first (literal) drop in what should be an ocean; and Im actively encouraging my friends to do the moral thing and refuse to get boosted.

go_blue_13 5y ago

they can go get the safe, effective vaccine for free so they don't have to quarantine

mywittyname 5y ago

Quarantine procedures were in place during Zika and Ebola outbreaks as well. And those procedures were substantially more harsh. Major metro hospitals had quarantine facilities brought in for Ebola. Patients were shoved into a mobile field hospital for 14 days. Not a single protest happened for that. The takeaway here is that none of this is new. People are mostly just pissed off that the quarantine procedures now apply to them. It was a-okay when other people were shoved into isolation tanks because, "that's what happens when you go to Africa."

tagoregrtst 5y ago
Right, but the virus was contained. A quarantine when you have as much COVID as anyone is petty.
- manquer 5y ago
  Effectiveness is not metric that changes legality. A lot of government policy is ineffective does not make it illegal or unconstitutional .
  - FpUser 5y ago
    When the rights are infringed upon just for the fuck of it without solid proof that it is to prevent endangering large amount of lives - maybe it is technically legal but I think it is crime.
    - manquer 5y ago
      You can make it illegal and actually a crime. The democratic way to make it one is either make that point democratically elected leaders in a civilized manner or vote against them next election and organize into parties/block to influence policy. Terrorizing and hold regular people hostage with noise pollution, blockade and disrupt their lives is what revolutionary/terrorist organization would do. If protestors behave like terrorists and insurgents then sooner or later they will be treated like one.

seattle_spring 5y ago

Gosh, that's a really tough position to be in. If only there was something they could do to be exempt from the 14 day quarantine. Anything at all.

hanselot 5y ago

FireBeyond 5y ago

Upstream in this thread we have "it's not torture because no-one is making those residents who live in the area stay" - because of course, they all can afford the time and effort to go stay in a hotel out of the area for a few weeks... Here we have "oh, well, it might as well be a ban, if you're going to inconvenience someone for a few weeks".