[News] Upd: Canadian NHL Teams to require proof of vaccination to attend any arena events

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Why would I think this? Because it’s what the Charter says.

If you believe that human rights only exist because the Charter of Rights under the Canadian constitution confers them, you are a complete idiot.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I quote from your link:



Requiring people to carry a vaccination passport everywhere they go, or be denied entry to any building, is not limited in time, does not take into consideration any impact on vulnerable or marginalied groups, and even if it became lawful, is neither necessary nor proportionate.

Sure it is. And you are assuming there would be no sunset clause, or exceptions for your imaginary marginalized groups. Or maybe you can cite the draft legislation.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you believe that human rights only exist because the Charter of Rights under the Canadian constitution confers them, you are a complete idiot.

LOL. The Charter is exactly reflective of the UDHR. They cover the exact same ground.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's what I'd expect you to say.



Here's the basic definition given by Wikipedia:



If you are forbidden from entering each and every place within the territory of your country, you do not have freedom of movement. We have already seen our government forbid us to enter each other's homes. The express purpose of the vaccination passport is to forbid people to enter businesses and public buildings unless they are carrying the required document – and there is no guarantee that such a document will be issued if properly applied for.

I've known enough people whose basic human rights were denied because the Canadian government refused to provide them with necessary documents. If you want to be one of those people, nobody is stopping you; but you're a damned selfish fool if you want to impose that on everyone else.

You are full of stories of “people you know”. I call BS. I suspect the people you know were not entitled to the “necessary documents”.

But in any event what you are describing are failures to execute a law properly, not failure of the law.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Sure it is. And you are assuming there would be no sunset clause, or exceptions for your imaginary marginalized groups. Or maybe you can cite the draft legislation.

The stated intention is to protect people from COVID infection. There is no sunset clause on the COVID virus. As long as the virus remains, the legislation will remain in effect – unless you have definite information to the contrary?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The stated intention is to protect people from COVID infection. There is no sunset clause on the COVID virus. As long as the virus remains, the legislation will remain in effect – unless you have definite information to the contrary?

There. Is. No. Legislation.

But I suspect that any such legislation would have a sunset pause for review. Just like post 9-11 terrorism laws, which all had sunset clauses despite the fact terrorism never completely goes away.

Such a specious argument.

[calgarywinning]

The above should be in PM. This is toxic.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are full of stories of “people you know”. I call BS. I suspect the people you know were not entitled to the “necessary documents”.

My wife is one of those people. It took her several years to obtain her Indian status card, and for over 20 years now she has been unable to obtain an Alberta health care card – even though she is a lifelong Alberta resident.

If you think you can convince me of anything by calling things I have personally witnessed BS, you're an even bigger fool than I thought.

But in any event what you are describing are failures to execute a law properly, not failure of the law.

A law that requires public officials to execute it perfectly, and provides no recourse when they do not, is a bad law.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I quote from your link:



Requiring people to carry a vaccination passport everywhere they go, or be denied entry to any building, is not limited in time, does not take into consideration any impact on vulnerable or marginalied groups, and even if it became lawful, is neither necessary nor proportionate.

Requiring people to carry a vaccination passport everywhere they go, or be denied entry to any building, is not limited in time, does not take into consideration any impact on vulnerable or marginalied groups, and even if it became lawful, is neither necessary nor proportionate.[/QUOTE]
Man if there is one thing I have learned from this thread its that gio4pm isn't a guy I would want representing me in court. Did he even read his own link?...or are interpretation skills optional for becoming a lawer? I legit thought he was trolling

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

The above should be in PM. This is toxic.

Well, only one side in the exchange is calling names. It’s OK, though since I’m pretty comfortable that I’m not a “complete idiot”.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There. Is. No. Legislation.

Then. Don't. Tell. Me. To. Cite. It.

But I suspect that any such legislation would have a sunset pause for review.

Oh, well, if you suspect that the legislation would have a sunset clause, I guess that proves everything is just tickety-boo.

Just like post 9-11 terrorism laws, which all had sunset clauses despite the fact terrorism never completely goes away.

Such a specious argument.

Income tax. Temporary. 1917.

No sunset clause.

Try not paying your income tax and then tell me how specious it is.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, only one side in the exchange is calling names. It’s OK, though since I’m pretty comfortable that I’m not a “complete idiot”.

You are acting toxic. Both of you. Wind it down. Find common ground. Use some reason. FFS.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

LOL. The Charter is exactly reflective of the UDHR. They cover the exact same ground.

What, the UDHR only intended to give people the freedom to move between one Canadian province and another? That's a pretty odd ‘universal’ right.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

You are acting toxic. Both of you. Wind it down. Find common ground. Use some reason. FFS.

There is no common ground between a person who thinks everything legal is right and one who recognizes that there are such things as bad laws.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by UKflames

Medical segragationhas begun with hockey games, where does it end.

This magical injection doesn't stop you catching covid, it doesn't stop you transmitting covid, so you supporters of this passport are just as capable of passing covid on as the next person, so why does that make you any different to someone who hasn't had the injection, it doesn't!!!! You have just been made to feel special and doing your bit for society.

You can call this a conspiracy theory and me a tin foil hat wearer but once you get used to having your passport for covid, what if they turn around and go, sorry no entry until you go vegan or take another injection of their choice.

My goodness you people are sleep walking into some sort of tyranny.

Magical is a great word, because the effectiveness of this vaccine to enable us to return to normal life, enabled by incredible human ingenuity, is very magical indeed. Of course your ignorance is showing by saying you're "just as capable of passing covid". Of course you can, but your chances of passing it on are greatly, greatly reduced. And magically, it gives everyone a very high chance of survival if one does contract it. Vaccines generally are magical - they've helped us eradicate disease and dramatically improve human life expectancy and quality of life. A lot of that has been enabled by mandatory vaccination policy. This concept is NOT new. It is NOT tyranny. It's public health.

The only tyranny (and anger) I feel at present is at those holding the rest of society hostage due to their selfishness and ignorance. We're the ones begging our governments to do what's appropriate to motivate people sufficiently to get the safe and effective vaccine to get us out of this mess. Otherwise it's perpetual. This is about some arbitrary government driven action to control its citizenry.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Man if there is one thing I have learned from this thread its that gio4pm isn't a guy I would want representing me in court. Did he even read his own link?...or are interpretation skills optional for becoming a lawer? I legit thought he was trolling

You realize that he wasn’t accurately quoting right? There’s nothing about a passport being a violation in the article. That’s a conclusion Jay has tried to extrapolate. In fact, the article concludes the opposite about restrictions in general.

“ In a democratic society, there should be a balance between fundamental freedoms and public health and safety. When a health issue – such as a pandemic – threatens a whole population and presents a serious danger to others, curtailing our individual freedoms is justified and necessary in order to protect others and ourselves”

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

What, the UDHR only intended to give people the freedom to move between one Canadian province and another? That's a pretty odd ‘universal’ right.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

No, it is all about travel to work. Like the Charter.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There is no end. COVID is here to stay. It is already mutating out of control and will continue to do so. At some point it will be reclassified from a pandemic to an endemic disease (if sanity prevails), but the disease itself will not go away. That means that whatever ‘emergency’ measures you take now will become permanent unless the political will exists to revoke them.

There is one of three ends:

If R<<1, the end is that covid ends up like smallpox.
If R<1, the end is that covid ends up like measles, or the flu.
If R>1, the end is that everyone's infected, and a lot of people are dead.

Vaccines reduce R. Restricting the unvaccinated reduces R more than restricting the the vaccinated.

Choose your ending.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Then. Don't. Tell. Me. To. Cite. It.



Oh, well, if you suspect that the legislation would have a sunset clause, I guess that proves everything is just tickety-boo.



Income tax. Temporary. 1917.

No sunset clause.

Try not paying your income tax and then tell me how specious it is.

Your argument makes no sense. Because one law had no sunset clause, all laws have no sunset clause?

Again, just because something “never goes away” it doesn’t mean laws addressing it can’t have a sunset clause.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You realize that he wasn’t accurately quoting right? There’s nothing about a passport being a violation in the article. That’s a conclusion Jay has tried to extrapolate. In fact, the article concludes the opposite about restrictions in general.

You are the one who is extrapolating to the conclusion that forbidding people without vaccine passports to go into any public or private building is a reasonable restriction under the Siracusa Principles. And you are the one who believes that the Sunset Clause Fairy will make either the law or the virus go away.