I'm a little late to this discussion, however do want to chime in on the ridiculousness of the CHRC's explanation that “reasonable limits can be placed on our rights when it applies to public health and safety,” and “requiring that an individual be vaccinated to work or travel is not a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act” (CHRA). This response completely neglects the FACT that said "vaccinations" were EXPERIMENTAL in nature and therefore UNPROVEN to be safe. We all know how that went. It is unequivocally a human rights abuse for a government to mandate any medical procedure that has not been properly safety tested, and therefore it is a human rights abuse to require that a person be injected with such a substance in order to work or travel.
It doesn't matter if the "vaccine" is totally save and effective. They CANNOT force you to take it and it certainly CANNOT be legally mandated because it violates the Constitution. They knew this and did it anyway.
The CHRC says 'reasonable limits can be imposed'. Does the CHRC have any duty to assess if an imposed limitation of one's human rights are reasonable, and by what standards or parameters does it make such an assessmenent; or do they simply accept that the human rights violation of itself is always justified and ignore that question unless the human right at issue involves the accommodation of a protected characteristic?
Good for you to put teeth into this outrageous practice of redactions in tandem with gross human rights abuses.. makes me hotter than a hornet these Public SERVANTS imagine they rule us!!
"In what appears to be a draft Frequently Asked Questions page, the CHRC asserts that vaccination requirements do not “violate human rights principles” because “rights are not absolute.” The CHRC explains that “reasonable limits can be placed on our rights when it applies to public health and safety,...." Preposterous loophole for tyranny on demand!
Should not more records exist regarding the actual meeting with the CSC entity.
Consider also an FOI to Correction Services Canada to shed more light on the letter whose content has been redacted. For instance for all records Corrections possess regarding meetings with the CHRC.
I'm a little late to this discussion, however do want to chime in on the ridiculousness of the CHRC's explanation that “reasonable limits can be placed on our rights when it applies to public health and safety,” and “requiring that an individual be vaccinated to work or travel is not a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act” (CHRA). This response completely neglects the FACT that said "vaccinations" were EXPERIMENTAL in nature and therefore UNPROVEN to be safe. We all know how that went. It is unequivocally a human rights abuse for a government to mandate any medical procedure that has not been properly safety tested, and therefore it is a human rights abuse to require that a person be injected with such a substance in order to work or travel.
It doesn't matter if the "vaccine" is totally save and effective. They CANNOT force you to take it and it certainly CANNOT be legally mandated because it violates the Constitution. They knew this and did it anyway.
Hi Angie, I'm speaking as a Canadian about the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Different country, different laws.
The CHRC says 'reasonable limits can be imposed'. Does the CHRC have any duty to assess if an imposed limitation of one's human rights are reasonable, and by what standards or parameters does it make such an assessmenent; or do they simply accept that the human rights violation of itself is always justified and ignore that question unless the human right at issue involves the accommodation of a protected characteristic?
Good for you to put teeth into this outrageous practice of redactions in tandem with gross human rights abuses.. makes me hotter than a hornet these Public SERVANTS imagine they rule us!!
"In what appears to be a draft Frequently Asked Questions page, the CHRC asserts that vaccination requirements do not “violate human rights principles” because “rights are not absolute.” The CHRC explains that “reasonable limits can be placed on our rights when it applies to public health and safety,...." Preposterous loophole for tyranny on demand!
Should not more records exist regarding the actual meeting with the CSC entity.
Consider also an FOI to Correction Services Canada to shed more light on the letter whose content has been redacted. For instance for all records Corrections possess regarding meetings with the CHRC.