gibsonm
Active Member
So sad what’s happened to Canada. Sometimes “you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
|
|
|
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
zang
Senior Member
So, again... List those lost freedoms from the charter.
picard102
Senior Member
No. It's not. But feel free to show yourself out.
Northern Light
Superstar
One is free to defend some or all of the public health restrictions, as a matter of preference; and arguing that the 'Reasonable Limits' clause in the Charter may allow for the restrictions on freedoms imposed under the former.
One may not argue there are no restrictions on Charter-guaranteed freedoms, since they are self-evident.
From the Charter:
If public health laws have the effect of depriving one of employment, except where one consents to a medical procedure that is clearly a violation of security of the person.
Further:
Clearly the restrictions imposed interfere with 2b The only question is whether those restrictions are justified under S.1
***
One could certainly also contend that the rules violate 2, d (perhaps even c):
***
None of which is to argue against vaccination, nor against reasonable public health measures.
It is to argue against polemicism and extremism, where the facts appear to be an afterthought, rather than the basis of informed debate.
***
I'm in favour of a science-based, facts-first discussion on all things.
***
For the record, the convoy is full of idiots, and extremists who I would not associate with or endorse in the least.
But the arguments raised should be thoughtfully parsed rather than dismissed out of hand.
One may not argue there are no restrictions on Charter-guaranteed freedoms, since they are self-evident.
From the Charter:
If public health laws have the effect of depriving one of employment, except where one consents to a medical procedure that is clearly a violation of security of the person.
Further:
Clearly the restrictions imposed interfere with 2b The only question is whether those restrictions are justified under S.1
***
One could certainly also contend that the rules violate 2, d (perhaps even c):
***
None of which is to argue against vaccination, nor against reasonable public health measures.
It is to argue against polemicism and extremism, where the facts appear to be an afterthought, rather than the basis of informed debate.
***
I'm in favour of a science-based, facts-first discussion on all things.
***
For the record, the convoy is full of idiots, and extremists who I would not associate with or endorse in the least.
But the arguments raised should be thoughtfully parsed rather than dismissed out of hand.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
There are 420,000 active transport semi tractors in Canada. 121 of them does not make a protest.
This is what a trucker protest looks like....Calais, France protest.
This is what a trucker protest looks like....Calais, France protest.
tiffer24
Senior Member
I get all my medical advice from long-haul truckers and talk-radio hosts, said no one, ever.
Last edited:
APTA-2048
Senior Member
I saw the trucks and some of the crowd yesterday in Durham. There were more people at a Raptors game. Something actually popular.
gibsonm
Active Member
What self-satisfied nonsense. Canadian democracy today: Impose and maintain some of the harshest lockdowns, restrictions and mandates on citizens in the developed world, brand opponents as moron misogynists/racists/extremists, and show solidarity with Ukraine by sending 60 ill-equipped soldiers to help ward off the second largest military superpower. Anyhoo, return to your hall of mirrors. Ignorance is bliss.
APTA-2048
Senior Member
Are you ok?
I feel like when you're presented with a counter argument, you deflect with an unhinged rant.
So for the third time I'll say: Ontario is easing restrictions in 3 days.
Oh and look at what Dr Moore said. Isn't this what you wanted?
This article doesn't really address the employment bit. I am also not an expert, nor do I play one on TV, but in my lay opinion the right to earn a livelihood doesn't equate to the right to earn said livelihood in one particular job. So even if your employer mandates vaccines, as large employers such as the City of Toronto, the TTC and more have done, it doesn't prohibit you from finding employment elsewhere. There are many restrictions and requirements employers can and do mandate. There are employers who do not require vaccines.
I am also confident that the TTC and others consulted with experts before bringing in any health related mandates.
Rimsky44
Active Member
I deleted my response exactly because it didn't address the employment bit, but agree with you.
The article does address other areas of the Charter though, so it's good info!
DSCToronto
Superstar
I think this discussion is going nowhere. Logic clearly does not apply, don't feed the troll.
Northern Light
Superstar
@Rimsky44
I'm happy to answer;
No, I am not an expert in Constitutional law, that's a high bar for a non-lawyer, though I have studied law in a breadth manner, including the constitution and have a degree in Canadian Pol. Sci and in History, and have written papers on it. Still, expert is too elevated to be a fair descriptor; knowledgeable would be fair.
The argument over whether a prima facie rights violation is ultimately unconstituional is really around S.1 (the reasonable limits clause)
S. 1 is commonly used to defend any number of nominal violations of the Charter by any number of laws and regulations.
This is fine, by the way, in my books, its a very sensible Canadian provision that says that our values are key, but they are not immutable, if there is a clear and pressing reason.
To invoke S.1, the Supreme Court has laid out a number of tests; some of the imposed restrictions would certainly pass those tests; others may or may not.
But, and this is important in arguing..........If S.1 is invoked the government is conceding as-of-right, that there is a violation of the Charter, and then relying on S.1 to justify that choice.
It may well be justified (I may wholly support it), but it is still a violation, merely a lawful one.
Now, let me substantiate the above:
This comes from the Federal Justice Department's own website: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html
From the same source:
"Demonstrably justified" connotes a strong evidentiary foundation. Cogent and persuasive evidence is generally required (Oakes, supra). Where scientific or social science evidence is available, it will be required; however, where such evidence is inconclusive, or does not exist and could not be developed, reason and logic may suffice
****
The Oakes Test referenced above, for whether S.1 can be invoked is described below (again this is the Justice Dept website linked above)
There's a good deal more at the link above, but I don't want to offer a multi-page treatise, LOL
Simply info on understanding the Constitution.
FWIW, my read is that public health measures implemented, on their face pass the 1st part of the test.
But some would be seriously challenged with parts of the second branch of Oakes.
Some would pass easily.
Last edited: