• Cam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        And the vaccine was a choice. Noone was forced to take it.

        Many lost their jobs and in places like Canada could not leave the country for refusing to take the vaccine? It was not a choice, it was forced and those who wished to be left alone, lost basic freedoms.

        Imagine you wanted to leave Canada to go to a better place, but you were denied since you needed to show a digital ID. Think about it.

        • MapleEngineer@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The provincial superior courts and the Supreme Court have long held and being vaccinated can be a requirement of employment. The people who lost their jobs did so because they did not meet their conditions of employment. Their choice.

          You have the right under Section 6 of the Charter to cross provincial borders without restriction, to live anywhere in the country you choose to, and to leave Canada and return to Canada.

          You could have walked to the border and left Canada if the US would take you (it wouldn’t nor would any other country). If you were outside of Canada you could have walked to to the border and entered Canada but you would probably have been required to quantine for a couple of weeks. Your rights were never in any danger you just don’t understand what they are.

          • Cam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            and to leave Canada and return to Canada

            This is false. Canadians could not board planes. How can you leave the country if you were denied access to a plane ride? This did violate the Canadian charter of human rights.

            Yeah the US also blocked access to the unvaxxed, the only neighbouring country to Canada. And denying access to air travel was not done to “stop the spread of COVID”. It was malice, and to make excuses for this with twisted logic is quite disturbing to say the least.

            • MapleEngineer@lemmy.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Can you point to your right to fly on an airplane in the Charter? I’ll wait…

              Here is Section 6 to help you out.

              You have no right to fly on an airplane or to ride on a train or a boat. You could have driven or walked to the border and left Canada if the US would take you. It wouldn’t. You could have driven to the coast, bought a boat, and sailed to any country that you could reach by sea if they would take you. They wouldn’t. You always had the right to leave Canada, you just didn’t have the ability to leave Canada as a consequence of your choices.

              • Cam@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                OMG! So you expect people to start their own airline, buy their own yacht? You must be Trudeau’s legal guy to use twisted logic to keep people from leaving the country. Unfrickin believable.

            • MapleEngineer@lemmy.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This did violate the Canadian charter of human rights.

              Do you mean the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

              In the case that this article is referring to Justices Frederica Schutz, Michelle Crighton and Dawn Pentelechuk of the Alberta Court of Appeals wrote that “Ms. Lewis’ COVID-19 vaccination status is not who she is,” the court wrote. “It is not an immutable personal characteristic … her choice not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is just that — a choice.

              What that means is that it isn’t a Charter issue because it was her choice not to be vaccinated which resulted in her being lawfully denied a transplant. It is the same for people who were not vaccinated and could not fly, it was their choice and therefore not a Charter issue.

              There are excellent references available on the Justice Canada website that explain exactly what the Charter does and does not mean. Avoid Facebook because that is likely how you ended up confused in the first place and avoid the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom website because they lose 99% of their cases because they are just a right wing extremist troll farm.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do, that’s why you’re likely not vaccinated right now, and why people who are against it are not vaccinated.

      Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences of choices. If you make a bad choice, you aren’t entitled to be free from the consequences of that choice.

    • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you run around with Covid making others sick, you do not just weigh a risk for yourself, you are also inflicting it onto others. If too many do that, society breaks because hospitals get overwhelmed, firefighters and law enforcement are sick, the grocery store has to close and the government stops working. Children are unattended and whatever else.

      If you do not wear a set belt your broken body takes up a hospital bed too, or are you going to accept the weight of your decision and abstain from health care because you inflicted that harm on yourself? Be welcome to not wear a seatbelt then, but make sure to have a big sticker on your car that says: “My head injury was my choice, so do not help.”

      • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think

        1. Most people are actually mostly reasonable most of the time because they don’t want to die or be seriously injured
        2. Generally then, your scenario is unrealistic
        3. If it were true, that most people were just dying to get brain damage in car accidents we could probably deal with it in a non-authoritarian way

        Consider the billions per month alcohol and tobacco cost public health systems. We still let people do these things. Frankly I’d very much be in favor of taxing smokers more if they wanted to use the public health system.

        The reality is, you just like a more controlling society as I like a more free one.