Vaccination Cards = De facto Forced Vaccination Program

Once again, I feel compelled to question the actions of our provincial government. I have witnessed a near-complete disregard for charter rights throughout this pandemic. I am unclear what the legal foundation is for the implementation of Vaccination Cards. If anyone that reads is aware, may I impose on you to provide me with the various statutes and laws generally that the government has relied on to implement this program?

Click here for my personal website

 
I must say, the choice of venues and nature of prohibitions seem designed to skirt charter issues to a degree. Whatever the case, this clearly assaults the spirit of Section 7.
 

One recognizes the need to manage difficult situations – I have yet to see any data nearly compelling enough for a de facto forced vaccination program. Domain over mind and body (the right to refuse medical treatment) is the most sacred element of human rights, it is odd to me to see so many assaults on this element of human rights by governments that call themself “progressive”; no one is seeking consent by this action, they are seeking to force compliance.

I will grant the government a degree of sympathy insomuch that the federal government has been slow to implement its proper and legal jurisdiction. If anyone who reads this has a complete understanding of the federal support for these sorts of initiatives, may I impose on you to inform me what legal direction and support the federal government has provided the provinces – timelines would be helpful? What I am eager to do is to prevent the degradation of human rights in Canada, rather than carrying any political agenda – your help would be most appreciated.

nthomson20@gmail.com 

The concern for me is the way these things have been done. Had the Emergency Measures Act been activated at the outset of the pandemic, it would be a matter of public record as to why and its purposes, it would have been subordinated to the Charter and subject oversight by parliament, thus providing a legal umbrella to administer the law under; specifically the Emergency Measures Act. and then the law generally. In this way, social distancing and other measures, such as restricting the right to assembly would have been exercised under the EM act - rather than arbitrarily as they were in many cases. This process would have provided a clear statutory point of delineation - "date x" civil rights were intruded on and on "date b" it is now over. Further, and as concerning, in allowing the provinces to do this absent federal authority clearly given, federal paramountcy is weakened. It is, for this reason, I am seeking input from various parties for information on the federal government’s direction on these issues.

State Paternalism - The balance between the collective and the individual & Covid 19

State paternalism is problematic for a number of reasons, it obstructs people from helping themselves, it creates dependence rather than independence, it encroaches on personal choice and it kills initiative. The state, rather than regulating and controlling people, should educate and facilitate. Of course, there are extreme instances when the state must respond to the common good, emergencies like Covid 19 or a war. However, even in the context of an extreme circumstance, the government should seek to help people help themselves - rather than forcing people to heal.

When we had H1N1, a family member having a precondition which qualified them for early vaccination attended for vaccination. The government solution to vaccinating people was to set up a vaccination centre in a church - 100s people congregated there to get their vaccination; the most vulnerable. We never knew who was presymptomatic, who was an asymptomatic carrier or who was unaffected and neither did the government - yet they did it anyway. It makes no sense, whatsoever, to respond to a contagious disease by congregating people or by bringing them to a central hospital. It makes more sense to maintain social distancing, to isolate people from one another. So why then did the government do such a silly thing and why are they still doing such silly things? Now with Covid 19, they have people reporting to centralized treatment centres, centralized testing centres etc.. 

I think the reason the government would congregate people during a pandemic to vaccinate is so medical professionals can administer the shot. The better solution would be to distribute the vaccination kits to people's homes via a courier or special Canada Post and have people administer the vaccine to themselves. I give myself B6 and B12 injections all the time, I give myself the flu shot every year - there are few simpler tasks than giving an injection - yet the government is willing to put lives at risk - why.

Why does the government insist that I have a prescription from a doctor to get a drug? A smart person would seek the advice of a doctor before starting on to a new drug - I would - yet the government insists that every time I want drugs I have to get a prescription - even ones I've been taken before. In most cases, it is a complete waste fo time and resources. The doctor prescribes medication often absent the knowledge of what other drugs a person is taking - especially now when so many people rely on walk-in clinics and there is little continuity of care. In all my years of attending to pharmacies, I've never had anyone ask about my diet, my other medications or supplements herbal or otherwise. So the "safeguards" that are touted as the reason these regulations are in place, are ineffective. So why have them?

The challenge we face when state paternalism controls our actions is, the solutions are delivered by edict, top-down, a one size fits all solution for the entire population. It is good for the government to provide pertinent information and to coordinate a response; it is bad when the government impairs people's capacity to care for themselves, especially when governments' assumption of generalised incompetence puts people at greater risk. We need to support people in being self-reliant, independent and resilient - if you give people the data and the tools, they are their best keepers. When you allow varied and independent response to challenges, a 1000 flowers bloom and new best practices emerge.

The depth of knowledge that resides in the population, or in the case of Covid 19 with the medical personnel, can never be accessed under a collection of edicts. Is just a fact of life, if I, by myself, list all the green vegetables I can think of, that 10 people will list many more. It is a paradox, that the collective, is best served by individuals acting in harmony to a cause rather than under the thumb of leadership/authority. It is a truth, that the best decisions are made closest to the point of action, that is to say, that people affected by all the immediacies of a given circumstance are best equipped to respond - rather than some centralized authority somewhere. There is a trend toward the infantilisation of the population, it effects control by dependence - it is insidious and one of the greatest risks to our liberty.