debate topic of the week - states of emergency and individual human rights

[opendoor]

Slippery slope arguments around COVID restrictions aren't particularly compelling, any more than ones around same-sex marriage leading to legalized polygamy were.

It's pretty obvious that most governments were dragged kicking and screaming into creating proof of vaccination, so I don't really buy that they're going to want to expand it (or even keep it going any longer than is absolutely necessary), particularly given that it will inevitably act as a drag on economic activity.

There are clear government benefits to maintaining other seemingly temporary things that became permanent (income tax, Patriot Act, etc.) that simply don't exist for something like vaccine passports.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

What is so problematic about it (provided it isn't discrimination)? How is it different than a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy? Or a swimming pool with a policy that says "you can't swim here if you have open wounds or foot fungus, etc."?

There are strong protections in place in Canada to keep health information private. That why whenever a server is compromised or a laptop with health care information is lost it makes the news, people get fired, and inquiries are launched.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Can you give examples of what you'd be worried about seeing?

Something like my restaurant example. Yes, being vaccinated is a choice, so it may not be too compelling of an example for some. How about denying entry to a bar if you're HIV positive, to protect other patrons in case they have a 1 night stand with you? Or denying access to an amusement park to individuals with heart issues. Don't want anybody dying on a Rollercoaster.

Originally Posted by Makarov

What is so problematic about it (provided it isn't discrimination)? How is it different than a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy? Or a swimming pool with a policy that says "you can't swim here if you have open wounds or foot fungus, etc."?

It's problematic, in my opinion, because it starts to put information that would otherwise be private into the public realm and open it up to scrutiny. Why should a restaurant know whether or not I'm vaccinated?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Something like my restaurant example. Yes, being vaccinated is a choice, so it may not be too compelling of an example for some. How about denying entry to a bar if you're HIV positive, to protect other patrons in case they have a 1 night stand with you? Or denying access to an amusement park to individuals with heart issues. Don't want anybody dying on a Rollercoaster.

It's problematic, in my opinion, because it starts to put information that would otherwise be private into the public realm and open it up to scrutiny. Why should a restaurant know whether or not I'm vaccinated?

Pretty obvious. You are a business risk, that could take their staff out for days or weeks. They have a duty to provide a safe work environment. They also may get more patrons, if those people know everyone in the restaurant is verified vaccinated. I know I won't be going anywhere unmasked without confirmation.

Also, your other comparisons are silly, because they don't present a risk to others by merely being present.

[PeteMoss]

And if you are 19 years old or look young - you are forced to give up your id and then willingly give up your credit card to them. If privacy is your concern - that should be more of a concern then them knowing if you are or are not vaccinated.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Pretty obvious. You are a business risk, that could take their staff out for days or weeks. They have a duty to provide a safe work environment. They also may get more patrons, if those people know everyone in the restaurant is verified vaccinated. I know I won't be going anywhere unmasked without confirmation.

Also, your other comparisons are silly, because they don't present a risk to others by merely being present.

How about being vaccinated against the flu? Measles? Chicken pox? How many vaccines are enough to gain entry? The argument can be made that all patrons need to be vaccinated against all diseases when a vaccine is available.

I know we're all thinking in the context of the global pandemic, but during normal times, is this Ok?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by _Q_

How about being vaccinated against the flu? Measles? Chicken pox? How many vaccines are enough to gain entry? The argument can be made that all patrons need to be vaccinated against all diseases when a vaccine is available.

I know we're all thinking in the context of the global pandemic, but during normal times, is this Ok?

It won't be required during normal times, though I'd have no problem confirming other vaccines if it came to that. I get my flu vaccine every year, because that's what doctors recommend, and it takes all of 20 minutes. I have all recommended vaccines(and some not) because I listen to science.

But to go back to your original point, we didn't previously have those requirements, #1, because in the past people actually listened to their doctors instead of Facebook and got their children immunized, and #2, the viruses weren't destroying society.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are strong protections in place in Canada to keep health information private. That why whenever a server is compromised or a laptop with health care information is lost it makes the news, people get fired, and inquiries are launched.

I'm not familiar with the personal health information legislation in Alberta (although I expect it is broadly similar to other provinces), but I can assure you that the personal health information legislation in Ontario only applies to designated personal health information custodians (such as health care providers, etc.) There is nothing in that legislation which would prohibit a private service provider (like a restaurant) from requesting personal health information from prospective patrons, a patron from consenting to providing the requested personal health information, or the service provider from refusing entry to patrons who did not consent.

Some private service providers may be subject to federal legislation like PIPEDA. However, there is also nothing in that legislation which would prohibit any of the above.

Again, this would all fall within the prerogative of the private service provider (provided none of it amounted to discrimination under the Human Rights Code). I don't have any issue with it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by _Q_

How about being vaccinated against the flu? Measles? Chicken pox? How many vaccines are enough to gain entry? The argument can be made that all patrons need to be vaccinated against all diseases when a vaccine is available.

I know we're all thinking in the context of the global pandemic, but during normal times, is this Ok?

Sure. Why not? No shirt, no shoes, no shots, no service.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It won't be required during normal times, though I'd have no problem confirming other vaccines if it came to that. I get my flu vaccine every year, because that's what doctors recommend, and it takes all of 20 minutes. I have all recommended vaccines(and some not) because I listen to science.

But to go back to your original point, we didn't previously have those requirements, #1, because in the past people actually listened to their doctors instead of Facebook and got their children immunized, and #2, the viruses weren't destroying society.

I agree on the science of the vaccine.

As you've said. I listen to my doctor, not Facebook. My family doctor has always been fairly "meh" on the flu shot. "Get it if you like. Understand that it protects you against only 4 out of 1000s of strains. These are probably the most common strains this year, but who knows. You're healthy enough so it's up to you."

I do believe in the science and I listen to my doctor. That's why I have gotten the flu shot maybe 5 times in my life. Not because I think it's going to kill me or have any long term effects, but because I just don't care to get it.

Once I had a child, my doctor's tune changed. "I strongly recommend you get the flu shot, to protect your new born". So I got it.

Once we start allowing private businesses to mandate medical decisions, then that in my mind becomes problematic. As uncomfortable as it may be, your medical decisions should be made between you and your doctor, without interference from private enterprise, or the public at large.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think that depends on the emergency.

Care to elaborate? What type of emergency is made more dire, or recovery hindered, by not removing a fundamental human right? And why?

And I don’t mean in the context of what people claim are their ‘rights’ as it relates to a Covid. I mean actual fundamental rights. What sort of emergency would you expect the suspension of which rights to be the solution?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Once we start allowing private businesses to mandate medical decisions, then that in my mind becomes problematic. As uncomfortable as it may be, your medical decisions should be made between you and your doctor, without interference from private enterprise, or the public at large.

Private businesses can already deny service for essentially any reason that isn’t a violation of your charter or human rights. Whether they should or shouldn’t be able to is debatable but whether they can or can’t isn’t.

They’re not forcing anyone to do anything, they’re just giving some people a choice that they really don’t like.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Private businesses can already deny service for essentially any reason that isn’t a violation of your charter or human rights. Whether they should or shouldn’t be able to is debatable but whether they can or can’t isn’t.

They’re not forcing anyone to do anything, they’re just giving some people a choice that they really don’t like.

That's understandable.

My argument isn't whether or not businesses should or shouldn't deny access based on medical records, but rather the negative consequences of setting up a system that would facilitate the sharing of medical information have on our freedoms.

McDonald's isn't going to suddenly ask to see your medical records if it wasn't just a simple QR code that you can pull up on your smart phone. "Sorry sir, doesn't look like you have had you annual medical examination, no Big Mac for you today."

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by _Q_

That's understandable.

My argument isn't whether or not businesses should or shouldn't deny access based on medical records, but rather the negative consequences of setting up a system that would facilitate the sharing of medical information have on our freedoms.

I hear what you’re saying, problem is I think we already established that system businesses have just never had a reason to take it to this level.

McDonald's isn't going to suddenly ask to see your medical records if it wasn't just a simple QR code that you can pull up on your smart phone. "Sorry sir, doesn't look like you have had you annual medical examination, no bug mac for you today."

I agree they probably wouldn’t, what I’m saying though is they could legally do so if they wanted to under our current laws.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Slippery slope arguments around COVID restrictions aren't particularly compelling, any more than ones around same-sex marriage leading to legalized polygamy were.

It's pretty obvious that most governments were dragged kicking and screaming into creating proof of vaccination, so I don't really buy that they're going to want to expand it (or even keep it going any longer than is absolutely necessary), particularly given that it will inevitably act as a drag on economic activity.

There are clear government benefits to maintaining other seemingly temporary things that became permanent (income tax, Patriot Act, etc.) that simply don't exist for something like vaccine passports.

I think the slippery slope arguments for same sex marriage are actually valid and I do think polygamy will be legal at one point.

I also have zero issue with it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm not familiar with the personal health information legislation in Alberta (although I expect it is broadly similar to other provinces), but I can assure you that the personal health information legislation in Ontario only applies to designated personal health information custodians (such as health care providers, etc.) There is nothing in that legislation which would prohibit a private service provider (like a restaurant) from requesting personal health information from prospective patrons, a patron from consenting to providing the requested personal health information, or the service provider from refusing entry to patrons who did not consent.

Let me rephrase the questions.

Why do all provinces have health privacy acts in the first place? What public interest do they serve? And why is there such public outrage when the security of personal health information is breached? Such as this instance:

“A breach of this magnitude is shocking,” said NDP Health Critic David Eggen. “For this government to fail in protecting such sensitive health information highlights the massive gaps we have in this province, and it is obvious that current legislation is not effective.”

The NDP is calling on the government to draft tougher legislation to ensure the private medical information of Albertan is better protected.

https://globalnews.ca/news/1100930/l...ertans-stolen/

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Let me rephrase the questions.

Why do all provinces have health privacy acts in the first place? What public interest do they serve? And why is there such public outrage when the security of personal health information is breached? Such as this instance:

Obviously because people don't want their information stolen.

But not sure the point of this discussion point. The provinces have either made an exemption for the vaccine mandates since they are both under their purview or the vaccine certificates don't fall under the health privacy acts.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Care to elaborate? What type of emergency is made more dire, or recovery hindered, by not removing a fundamental human right? And why?

And I don’t mean in the context of what people claim are their ‘rights’ as it relates to a Covid. I mean actual fundamental rights. What sort of emergency would you expect the suspension of which rights to be the solution?

Something like a war removes and restricts many rights. Would you begrudge the actions of countries during, say, WWII, such as conscription?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I agree on the science of the vaccine.

As you've said. I listen to my doctor, not Facebook. My family doctor has always been fairly "meh" on the flu shot. "Get it if you like. Understand that it protects you against only 4 out of 1000s of strains. These are probably the most common strains this year, but who knows. You're healthy enough so it's up to you."

I do believe in the science and I listen to my doctor. That's why I have gotten the flu shot maybe 5 times in my life. Not because I think it's going to kill me or have any long term effects, but because I just don't care to get it.

Once I had a child, my doctor's tune changed. "I strongly recommend you get the flu shot, to protect your new born". So I got it.

Once we start allowing private businesses to mandate medical decisions, then that in my mind becomes problematic. As uncomfortable as it may be, your medical decisions should be made between you and your doctor, without interference from private enterprise, or the public at large.

And that's part of the problem in this province, specially. Businesses don't want to be the ones forced to do this. They are begging the province to do it. But the business isn't "mandating medical decisions." People are free to make their own choices, and businesses are free to exclude them. If you chose to never wear a shirt again, a business could refuse to server you. But the decision is ultimately yours. You have no right to enter a business. You are granted access.

Now, there are protected classes, but the right to stay unvacinated isn't protected, nor should it be. Protected classes are not typically what someone chooses, it is what they are. So you remain free to make your choice, even if it is detrimental to society. Just don't expect equal access.

[peter12]

Obviously slippery slope arguments apply when it comes to privacy and individual freedom. We live in a post 9/11 world. That’s why we need to have a series of provincial and federal investigatory commissions in place within the next couple of years to document lessons learned and insure that governments don’t overreach or that if they make mistakes, they are held accountable.