Jump to content

Is Doug Ford handling the Covid 19 outbreak good?  

33 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Shady said:

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that.  I have heard the suggestion that these types of infringement of rights, is likely to happen much easier in the future as a president has been set.  What you libtards continue to fail to understand is that somebody can be pro-mitigation, pro-vaccine like I am. But still recognize fundamental rights and freedoms.  Perhaps your brains are too small to grasp the nuance and concept.

I believe its precedent, not president.  And its already been established long ago that these infringements can be initiated, as it is outlined in our constitution.

 

But I forgot, thats just toilet paper unless it applies to your interests.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Shady said:

Not really.  I don’t celebrate when my freedom is given back to me.  I don’t celebrate when rights that should never have been allowed to be taken by a government with no authority to take them, then starts giving them back in bits an pieces.  But you government stooges can celebrate all you want.  

Fine, pout in the corner and don't vote PC in the next election. 

I'm sure you'd much prefer the COVID situation in Saskatchewan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

March, hahahaha. Of course if you have no memory, this all sounds great. Go ahead and celebrate about March all you want, if it suits you. Just as you celebrated what was supposed to occur back in August.

At this point them telling us we can open up in March, almost 6 months from now, is worth about two flies.

Government credibility

 

Now we know why they call it an "Oxymoron"  

:ph34r:

 

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

March, hahahaha. Of course if you have no memory, this all sounds great. Go ahead and celebrate about March all you want, if it suits you. Just as you celebrated what was supposed to occur back in August.

At this point them telling us we can open up in March, almost 6 months from now, is worth about two flies.

Government credibility

 

Now we know why they call it an "Oxymoron"  

:ph34r:

I know comprehension is tough for you. 

We're pretty much already open. 

March (likely sooner) we can see the lifting of mask mandates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I know comprehension is tough for you. 

We're pretty much already open. 

March (likely sooner) we can see the lifting of mask mandates. 

No it is not lifted. You need to present 3 pieces of ID to use certain public spaces. Three, not two.

More than you understand but happy to educate all those here, who do not habla.

But hey, it’s all good when you’re financially comfortable, eh Boges?

Have ’nuther snifter of brandy...

;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

No it is not lifted. You need to present 3 pieces of ID to use certain public spaces. Three, not two.

More than you understand but happy to educate all those here, who do not habla.

But hey, it’s all good when you’re financially comfortable, eh Boges?

Have ’nuther snifter of brandy...

;) 

What 3? I've not experienced this. Your experience is anecdotal. And since you're not vaxxed, why are you even trying? 

If you're vaxxed you can dine indoors, see a sporting event, go to a Gym. 

My gym has only needed to check my vax credential once. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

No it is not lifted. You need to present 3 pieces of ID to use certain public spaces. Three, not two.

I have a mini-front yard with a table and a beach umbrella, chairs and flowers and trees around.  Me an my wife decided to call the place the "Singing Heart Restaurant".  Every evening I go back, my wife is there at a chair, I pull out a bottle of red wine and a plate of dried sausages and cheese.  We sit , eat and laugh.  No need to present a single ID.  If it gets cold, our restaurant has an inside table too.?

The catering business?  It is their loss.  I personally do not care.  It is unlikely someone will invite me to a wedding party or another public event and I would have to say "Sorry, can't come, have no Vax passport".  

The spaces I frequent, that are crucial to me, are the outdoor spaces - mountains, rivers, forests.

Edited by cougar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

A federal one isn't available yet. 

You get your proof of vaccination from the Province. 

I know, it's supposed to be Nov. 30, I think.

I only heard about this because I have friends in BC and they said, just like some businesses that are not mandated to require vax passports are requiring them anyways, some businesses are asking for both passes already.  They've already been asked at 2 places and when they didn't have the federal one, they were turned away.

I'm  just saying it's quite possible some businesses are requiring more than what they are even mandated to require.

As aside point In regard to this issue, this is hard to find on the AB government site and of course, is not being announced publicly, but businesses who require more than the government is mandating open themselves up to lawsuits.  I think there's going to be a lot of them when this fiasco is finally over.

 

Screenshot_20211024-110217.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I know, it's supposed to be Nov. 30, I think.

I only heard about this because I have friends in BC and they said, just like some businesses that are not mandated to require vax passports are requiring them anyways, some businesses are asking for both passes already.  They've already been asked at 2 places and when they didn't have the federal one, they were turned away.

I'm  just saying it's quite possible some businesses are requiring more than what they are even mandated to require.

As aside point In regard to this issue, this is hard to find on the AB government site and of course, is not being announced publicly, but businesses who require more than the government is mandating open themselves up to lawsuits.  I think there's going to be a lot of them when this fiasco is finally over.

 

Screenshot_20211024-110217.png

Why would courts infringe on the rights of businesses to determine who'll they'll do business with?  A business is not obligated to do business with everyone, after all.  Someone may try a lawsuit, but I seriously doubt they'd win 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Do you think they'll win?

The business would have to prove that it was necessary to discriminate against unvaccinated people.  And I really think when the dust settles on all this, even the government is going to have a tough time proving that.

One of the legal basis for restricting freedoms in a democratic society in Canada is the Oakes Test.  They have to prove that the benefits of a law outweigh the violating of rights.

Quote

 

The Test

The Court in R v Oakes created a two-step balancing test to determine whether a government can justify a law which limits a Charter right.

1.    The government must establish that the law under review has a goal that is both “pressing and substantial.” The law must be both important and necessary. Governments are usually successful in this first step.

2.  The court then conducts a proportionality analysis using three sub-tests.

a. The government must first establish that the provision of the law which limits a Charter right is rationally connected to the law’s purpose. If it is arbitrary or serves no logical purpose, then it will not meet this standard.

b. Secondly, a provision must minimally impair the violated Charter right. A provision that limits a Charter right will be constitutional only if it impairs the Charter right as little as possible or is “within a range of reasonably supportable alternatives.”[4]

c. Finally, the court examines the law’s proportionate effects. Even if the government can satisfy the above steps, the effect of the provision on Charter rights may be too high a price to pay for the advantage the provision would provide in advancing the law’s purpose.

 

In R vs. Oakes, police caught a man with a small amount of hash and charged him with possession for the purpose of trafficking. The Oakes precedent rules out a "reverse onus" where the police cannot presume trafficking from such a small amount of drugs.

Quote

The Oakes test is employed every time the government tries to defend a restriction on the Charter rights of Canadians. Some legislation has passed the test. For example in R v Keegstra,[6] the Supreme Court held that a law against hate speech was a reasonable and justifiable limit on section 2(b) of the Charter, freedom of expression. The test provides a mechanism for the courts to balance, on the one hand, the government’s ability to achieve its goals and, on the other, the protection of individual rights. This balancing test is now considered a cornerstone of Canadian constitutional law.

There MUST be very extreme circumstances for the government to remove people's Charter rights.

This is one of the things that is being debated about draconian covid restrictions and mandatory mass vaccination - is it so extreme that the government should be allowed to remove individual Charter rights?

It's a tough one to call.  Yes, it's worse than the seasonal flu, but it also has a 99.5% survival rate and mostly affects elderly and terminally ill people, much like the seasonal flu, which has never necessitated taking away Charter rights of Canadians.

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The business would have to prove that it was necessary to discriminate against unvaccinated people.  And I really think when the dust settles on all this, even the government is going to have a tough time proving that.

One of the legal basis for restricting freedoms in a democratic society in Canada is the Oakes Test.  They have to prove that the benefits of a law outweigh the violating of rights.

In R vs. Oakes, police caught a man with a small amount of hash and charged him with possession for the purpose of trafficking. The Oakes precedent rules out a "reverse onus" where the police cannot presume trafficking from such a small amount of drugs.

There MUST be very extreme circumstances for the government to remove people's Charter rights.

This is one of the things that is being debated about draconian covid restrictions and mandatory mass vaccination - is it so extreme that the government should be allowed to remove individual Charter rights?

It's a tough one to call.  Yes, it's worse than the seasonal flu, but it also has a 99.5% survival rate and mostly affects elderly and terminally ill people, much like the seasonal flu, which has never necessitated taking away Charter rights of Canadians.

There is precedent for these kinds of mandates, and in the States the right of authorities to implement public health measures has been upheld.  But these are different times, so we'll see.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

It's a tough one to call.  Yes, it's worse than the seasonal flu, but it also has a 99.5% survival rate and mostly affects elderly and terminally ill people, much like the seasonal flu, which has never necessitated taking away Charter rights of Canadians.

Don't you think they would just argue that the reason people mostly survived was because of the restrictions, as most of the dying happens when you can't get a ventilator? 

You use the success of the restrictions to argue against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, dialamah said:

There is precedent for these kinds of mandates, and in the States the right of authorities to implement public health measures has been upheld.  But these are different times, so we'll see.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

You're welcome.

I feel that the government would lose on the 3 subtests, especially 2a

The government must first establish that the provision of the law which limits a Charter right is rationally connected to the law’s purpose. If it is arbitrary or serves no logical purpose, then it will not meet this standard.

When Public Health Officers like Patricia Daly (and others) are admitting publicly that they do not see much transmission of covid in restaurants,  movies and gyms but the vax passports only serve the purpose of forcing people to get vaccinated, that is very arbitrary and illogical.  Hinshaw also admitted there is not much transmission in schools.  There are lots of other public leaders who have made similar remarks about various aspects of the restrictions and the passports, so it will be hard for them to go back in time and say there was a pressing need for them, when it is clear, there is not.

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Don't you think they would just argue that the reason people mostly survived was because of the restrictions, as most of the dying happens when you can't get a ventilator? 

You might want to check that out further.  The reason so many died in NYC when this all started was because of the use of ventilators.  They surmised very quickly that most covid cases were  not needing them and the ventilators were actually killing people.  There was no need for the 40,000 ventilators NYC was calling for and they were never acquired or used.

It seems you are way behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

You might want to check that out further.  The reason so many died in NYC when this all started was because of the use of ventilators.  

I don't hide the fact I know very little about the measures they take to save lives in the hospital (this is why I sheepishly listen to what public health authorities say), but my common sense tells me they try to save people, not kill them, and their job is made easier if they are not overrun with patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

I don't hide the fact I know very little about the measures they take to save lives in the hospital (this is why I sheepishly listen to what public health authorities say), but my common sense tells me they try to save people, not kill them, and their job is made easier if they are not overrun with patients.

Perhaps there is more to it than just shutting things down, because that comes with its issues too. What does your common sense tell you about that?

Or is it too many variables? Some people get discombubberated by it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...