Position Paper – Vaccine Immunity Passports

[canada-man]

MARCH 12, 2021 BY VACCINE CHOICE CANADA



Position Paper

Vaccine Immunity Passports

Any action that would require Canadians to produce a ‘Vaccine Immunity Passport’ or similar documentation to pursue life, liberty and happiness is unconstitutional and a deeply disturbing violation of our Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms.

No Medical Justification

Just as the various governments in Canada have failed to provide verifiable medical and scientific evidence to warrant the unprecedented lockdowns and other measures instated in response to the purported COVID pandemic, any requirement to produce documentation of COVID vaccine compliance is unjustified and without medical or scientific merit.

The justification to impose a system of control based on partaking in a medical treatment is that those who have received the product are assumed to be rendered immune from infection and therefore will not contribute to the spread of disease. At this time the scientific evidence does not support such belief. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) writes: “None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.” The BMJ article quoted Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, stating “Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission.”https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/position-paper-vaccine-immunity-passports/#_edn1

It should be noted that a system of COVID vaccination documentation to access travel is not supported by the World Health Organization. The WHO’s position, as stated on March 8, 2021, is that national authorities should not impose proof of COVID-19 vaccination as a condition for international travel. This is because the efficacy of vaccines in preventing transmission is not yet known. Nor is the length of effectiveness of the numerous COVID vaccines currently available under emergency use authorization. [ii]

The WHO also acknowledges that “there are real, practical and ethical considerations” with vaccine certification including “inequity and unfairness.” Dr Mike Ryan with the WHO states – “This is a very important societal discussion and I think we need to be very careful.”

COVID Shots Do Not Function as a Vaccine

It is misrepresentation to call these medical products ‘vaccines’. COVID shots do not function in the manner of traditional vaccine products. These shots are more accurately described as ‘medical devices’ in that they function through the injection of synthetic genetic technology. The long-term safety and efficacy consequences of injecting this never-before-used genetic technology is unknown. Canadians receiving COVID vaccinations are participating in human experimentation and truly informed consent is not possible.

The claimed benefit of the COVID shot is a reduction in the severity of symptoms in the individual if infection occurs. There is no verified evidence that these shots contribute to the protection of the community or population immunity. The failure to contribute to community benefit renders invalid any argument that the COVID shot ought to be mandated for ‘the greater good’.

Of greater concern is that these rushed-to-market coronavirus vaccine products have not completed formal safety testing protocols. The results of Phase III safety trials will not be reported until 2022 (Moderna) or 2023 (Pfizer). To compel the utilization of a product that is classified as ‘experimental’ is not only immoral, it may well be criminal. The fact that COVID -19 shot manufacturers have demanded and been granted legal indemnity for any harm or injuries caused by their products is a strong indicator of their potential to cause harm.

Violation of Rights and Freedoms

The most significant consequence of a system of coercion to promote vaccine compliance is the violation of our Charter rights and freedoms. The intention of such a passport would be to arbitrarily restrict access to travel and services of those individuals not partaking in this human experiment. Such arbitrary restrictions have no place in a free and democratic society. These coercive measures also violate Section 7 i.e. security of the person, which includes the right to control one’s own bodily integrity.

Those advocating for vaccine compliance passports are complicit in supporting coercive measures to compel vaccination upon unwilling and vaccine risk aware citizens. This is a violation of the most basic foundations of ethical medicine. It is untenable that anyone would seek to replace the right of informed consent by eliminating individual choice and replacing it with an obligation to vaccinate under duress of exclusion from participating fully in society.

The right to informed consent is legally guaranteed under provincial legislation and is acknowledged in international covenants such as the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, and the Nuremberg Code drafted in response to the medical abuses of the Nazi regime.

The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights describes consent as follows: “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.”

The Nuremberg Code describes informed voluntary consent as “the person involved… should be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.”

Conclusion

COVID vaccine compliance passports are a coercive and unconscionable violation of the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Vaccine passports clearly function as a mechanism of coercion rather than as a measure of health. There is absolutely no justification that could possibly legitimize this violation of our rights and freedoms.

Vaccine Choice Canada will leverage all of its resources to prevent this violation of individual rights, medical choice and bodily sovereignty as well as the creation of system that can be justifiably labelled a medical apartheid.

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/position-paper-vaccine-immunity-passports/#_ednref1 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

[ii] https://www.who.int/news-room/news-updates

Response to Immunity Passports – Printable – PDF

Position Paper - Vaccine Immunity Passports - Vaccine Choice Canada

 

[squeezer]

YASSSSSSSSS, vaccine passports are coming and not just in Canada. It will be all across the globe. I love it!!!

 

[canada-man]

YASSSSSSSSS, vaccine passports are coming and not just in Canada. It will be all across the globe. I love it!!!

nice to see that you support human rights violations like a typical lockdown supporter

 

[squeezer]

nice to see that you support human rights violations like a typical lockdown supporter

YASSSSSSS!!! I wholeheartedly support it. As a matter of fact, I hope restaurants, theatres, sporting events all demand the same!!!

 

[glamphotographer]

If it segregates the covididiots out of society them I'm all for it.

 

[canada-man]

more supporters of human rights violations will confess in this thread stay tuned

 

[squeezer]

more supporters of human rights violations will confess in this thread stay tuned

Give your Cerb money back!

 

[Valcazar]

Has someone actually proposed them beyond floating the idea?

 

[luvyeah]

Fun game, I recommend.

 

[Valcazar]

Fun game, I recommend.

I wouldn't actually call this game "fun".

 

[luvyeah]

I wouldn't actually call this game "fun".

Oh that's where I'd disagree. Have you even played it? It gets pretty addicting.

Do you buy medicine or pay for food or heat?

 

[Valcazar]

Oh that's where I'd disagree. Have you even played it? It gets pretty addicting.

Do you buy medicine or pay for food or heat?

Oh, it's addicting and it's really good.
I just think the material is a little too dark to be called "fun".

 

[GameBoy27]

nice to see that you support human rights violations like a typical lockdown supporter

An employer can fire you if you go against their policy requiring employees to be vaccinated. Children who are not fully immunized may not be allowed to attend school. Airlines, restaurants, stores, concerts, sporting events, movie theaters etc. may all require you to be vaccinated.

Sucks to be you and all the other lunatics.

 

[canada-man]

An employer can fire you if you go against their policy requiring employees to be vaccinated. Children who are not fully immunized may not be allowed to attend school. Airlines, restaurants, stores, concerts, sporting events, movie theaters etc. may all require you to be vaccinated.

Sucks to be you and all the other lunatics.

here in Canada it would be illegal for employers to to ask their workers to get injected with the toxic jabs and can and will be sued and forced to defend themselves in court.


HRD spoke to Stephen Wolpert, partner at Whitten & Lublin and speaker at HRD’s upcoming Employment Law Masterclass Toronto.

Wolpert revealed whether or not an employer can insist an employee take the COVID-19 vaccine.

“My answer to that is almost certainly no,” he explained.

“Employers cannot force employees to take any kind of medication or vaccination, so the COVID-19 vaccine could follow the same rule.

COVID-19: Can you force an employee to take the vaccine? | HRD Canada (hcamag.com)








Is Immunization Mandatory in Canada? | immunizecanada

Immunizations are not mandatory in Canada; however, in OntarioOpens in a new window , and New BrunswickPDFOpens in a new window, proof of immunization is required for children and adolescents to attend school. In these same provinces, exceptions to immunizations can be made only for medical (can require a note from a healthcare provider) or ideological reasons.

 

[GameBoy27]

here in Canada it would be illegal for employers to to ask their workers to get injected with the toxic jabs and can and will be sued and forced to defend themselves in court.


HRD spoke to Stephen Wolpert, partner at Whitten & Lublin and speaker at HRD’s upcoming Employment Law Masterclass Toronto.

Wolpert revealed whether or not an employer can insist an employee take the COVID-19 vaccine.

“My answer to that is almost certainly no,” he explained.

“Employers cannot force employees to take any kind of medication or vaccination, so the COVID-19 vaccine could follow the same rule.

COVID-19: Can you force an employee to take the vaccine? | HRD Canada (hcamag.com)

Is Immunization Mandatory in Canada? | immunizecanada

Immunizations are not mandatory in Canada; however, in OntarioOpens in a new window , and New BrunswickPDFOpens in a new window, proof of immunization is required for children and adolescents to attend school. In these same provinces, exceptions to immunizations can be made only for medical (can require a note from a healthcare provider) or ideological reasons.

According to Howard Levitt (Canada's top labour lawyer), that's not the case.

Put yourself in this position: You are an employer, panicked at the risks of COVID-19 transmission in your workplace. If found sufficiently liable, you face up to a $10-million fine for carelessness towards COVID-19 under the Ontario Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (there are similar statutes in other provinces). You would face additional massive fines under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. And let’s not forget, an employer that has been found sufficiently wanton could potentially face a year in jail.

On top of those threats, if employers fail to keep their workplace adequately safe, in compliance with the relevant standard of care prescribed by the public health authorities, you also face the well-trodden action of negligence. Ill employees entering the workplace and infecting co-workers, customers or vendors or those individuals transmit it to their families or others as a result of insufficient precautions could result in legal actions against you, with court decisions potentially in the millions of dollars. Most Canadian employers would be rendered insolvent.

If the workers in question are covered by The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, then the employer will avoid the lawsuit, at least with respect to their own workers, but will quickly see their WSIB premiums surge.

You look for a magic bullet permitting you to sleep at night. And there is one solution, which with certainty will avoid every one of those risks. If you require all workers to vaccinate, respite will be yours, and none of the perils mentioned above can befall you. Negligence, as well as the public health statutes, is based upon employers falling below a reasonable standard of care and employees being stricken as a result. No one can challenge an employer, who insists on their employees’ vaccinations, as negligent. No one.

Given those stark choices, which employer will not leap with alacrity and insist upon vaccinations.

But can they?

Under our employment laws, safety trumps privacy. In addition, negligence is based upon non-compliance with the prevailing standard of care.

Once public health authorities deem it appropriate to recommend vaccinations for everyone and vaccines are sufficiently available to enable that, there will be a strong argument that not requiring vaccinations will be negligent. Even now, before all of that has occurred, there is no doubt that employees who deal with those susceptible to COVID-19, such as hospital workers or aides in long term care homes, can be forced to vaccinate on pain of dismissal for cause. The same, in my view, applies to any employee with regular contact with the public or who works in close proximity with others, such as a retail worker or an employee on factory floors.

But once public health recommends it for everyone, there is little doubt that the same will be true for any employee who works with others. Obviously, there is no basis to require vaccinations for employees who work entirely remotely but, as vaccinations become de rigueur and offices reopen, there will be much fewer of those.

In addition to avoiding liability, employers requiring vaccines will become the employer of choice for staff and customers will prefer attending their stores and offices. As vaccine rollouts accelerate, those having to avoid working in the office to protect vulnerable family members will no longer be able to claim that and employers will be able to order them back to work.

The trend to compulsory mainstream vaccinations may start here with U.S. companies imposing their requirements on their Canadian branches. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said that U.S. employers could require employees to be vaccinated against the flu in its 2009 guidance on the pandemic.

The only exceptions could be employees who have genuine religious restrictions against vaccination and those with disabilities prohibiting it. In that case, employers, under human rights law, will have to attempt to provide their workers some reasonable alternative to continuing to work. It cannot be based on a personal religion but a recognized religion, the central tenets of which prohibit vaccines.

If remote work is feasible or sufficient safety can be afforded through wearing a mask or having those employees work separated from all others, then that must be permitted to those employees who have a religious or medical exemption. Not to others. But if the employee cannot be accommodated, then they cannot continue in their employment and, at the very least, would have to be laid off, if not fired.

Many legal commentators have stated that employees cannot be forced to be vaccinated. They are wrong. They are relying on old arbitration cases involving vaccinations for the flu, at a time when the flu vaccine was found not to be very effective little more than half the time. Not with the 95 per cent efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. In addition, the flu is not virulent. Most importantly, it has not shut down our economy and reduced many to penury.

https://financialpost.com/executive...get-vaccinated-but-who-does-the-law-side-with

 

[canada-man]

According to Howard Levitt (Canada's top labour lawyer), that's not the case.

Repeating yourself does not make you right

 

[canada-man]

An employer can fire you if you go against their policy requiring employees to be vaccinated. Children who are not fully immunized may not be allowed to attend school. Airlines, restaurants, stores, concerts, sporting events, movie theaters etc. may all require you to be vaccinated.

Sucks to be you and all the other lunatics.

And that employer will be sued for wrongful dismal

 

[GameBoy27]

And that employer will be sued for wrongful dismal

Sure, you can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean you're going to win though. Howard doesn't often lose, so when he comments on something, he's usually right.