Enough is enough. Ban protests outside hospitals.

[OftenWrong]

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Are you hearing things, or did you have a source for this?

It took two seconds on google.

https://montreal.citynews.ca/2021/08/26/about-30000-health-workers-in-public-system-not-vaccinated-quebec-health-minister/

Back at the end of August, thousands still unvaccinated but they knew the government was demanding it.

Roughly 30,000 staff in the private health system and 25,800 in the public system remain unvaccinated, the Ministry of Health said in a statement on Wednesday.

Makes me wonder, why izzit?

Edited September 23, 2021 by OftenWrong

[myata]

In a democracy any limitation of rights of citizens a) explained b) justified c) defended in critical questioning d) implemented in a due process, and e) exists an instrument of oversight and if/when needed, recourse. Now, which of these rules apply to Covid restrictions? What happened to us and our democracy? Is one respiratory epidemic not catastrophically different from flu enough to throw all democratic checks and rules? Or else, we never had a democracy only thought so?

[TreeBeard]

14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Patient care was highly disrupted for the past year and a half. Where were you people then

How was it disrupted over the past 1.5 years?

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, EastCanada90 said:

well considering quebec moving to ban it.  it looks like you already losing the battle

Canada will ban it too as it was a campaign promise by Trudeau and Canadians re-elected him knowing this promise. An overwhelming majority of people support a ban on protest outside hospitals.

[CITIZEN_2015]

43 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

womans choice of there own body learn to respect it.

The right to abort a fetus is there as a fetus is still considered likely a part of a woman's body however after a few months when a heartbeat can be heard it is no longer part of a woman's body but a baby human and it is not anybody's right to kill it.

[TreeBeard]

15 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It took two seconds on google.

https://montreal.citynews.ca/2021/08/26/about-30000-health-workers-in-public-system-not-vaccinated-quebec-health-minister/

Back at the end of August, thousands still unvaccinated but they knew the government was demanding it.

Roughly 30,000 staff in the private health system and 25,800 in the public system remain unvaccinated, the Ministry of Health said in a statement on Wednesday.

Makes me wonder, why izzit?

I guess they’ll be trying to find new employment soon.

I’d be curious as to how many of these folks are doctors vs nurses vs cleaning/admin/support staff. 

Is this a Quebec problem?

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

The right to abort a fetus is there as a fetus is still considered likely a part of a woman's body however after a few months when a heartbeat can be heard it is no longer part of a woman's body but a baby human and it is not anybody's right to kill it.

If it’s not part of a woman’s body, then I guess it can just be removed?  Or is it more complicated than you let on?

[Shady]

28 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

still there choice if they wish to have abortion or not.

There’s no right to somebody else killing your unborn child.  There’s also no right to having other people pay for it.  You have no right to other people’s labour and/or money.  A right is something that can be exercised without requiring anything from anybody else.  Otherwise, that’s called a privilege.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Shady

[OftenWrong]

17 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

How was it disrupted over the past 1.5 years?

Ask the google servers. Remember when it comes to doing researches, Google is you fried.

Edited September 23, 2021 by OftenWrong
corrected all spelling errors

[EastCanada90]

8 minutes ago, Shady said:

There’s no right to somebody else killing your unborn child.  There’s also no right to having other people pay for it.  You have no right to other people’s labour and/or money.  A right is something that can be exercised without requiring anything from anybody else.  Otherwise, that’s called a privilege.

well weather you like it or not abortion is gonna be legal in canada lol.. soo actually it is a right

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Ask the google servers. Remember when it comes to doing researches, Google is you fried.

It actually doesn’t concern me…. Just curious.  I think there’s a plan in place to either get them vaccinated, or not have them in the job.  That works for me.

[Shady]

4 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

well weather you like it or not abortion is gonna be legal in canada lol.. soo actually it is a right

Legal doesn’t mean it’s a right or that it’s right.  Slavery used to be legal as well.  You still don’t understand the difference between a privilege and a right.

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Shady said:

Legal doesn’t mean it’s a right or that it’s right.  Slavery used to be legal as well.  You still don’t understand the difference between a privilege and a right.

Hmmm…  interesting take.  

Can you explain why the courts struck down the law because it infringed upon a woman’s right under Section 7?  Why would the court have said it violated a woman’s rights, if it wasn’t a right?

 

The law was found to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it infringed upon a woman’s right to “life, liberty and security of person.”

[Shady]

22 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Hmmm…  interesting take.  

Can you explain why the courts struck down the law because it infringed upon a woman’s right under Section 7?  Why would the court have said it violated a woman’s rights, if it wasn’t a right?

 

The law was found to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it infringed upon a woman’s right to “life, liberty and security of person.”

Yes, that’s based on 40 year old science.  Regardless, rights require nothing from anybody else, as you have no right to other people’s money or labour.  If all of a sudden doctors refused to preform abortions the government couldn’t force them to because it’s a “right”. 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Shady

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Shady said:

Yes, that’s based on 40 year old science.

So the judgement has been updated since then?  There’s a new ruling from the court that says Section 7 doesn’t apply to abortion?

Or are you just giving an opinion of what you think it should be?

[Shady]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

So the judgement has been updated since then?  There’s a new ruling from the court that says Section 7 doesn’t apply to abortion?

Or are you just giving an opinion of what you think it should be?

See my update edited post.  Hopefully you’ll understand the difference between a right and privilege.  Regardless, with up to date science, it would be interesting to see how the courts considered an unborn baby with a beating heart.

[TreeBeard]

19 minutes ago, Shady said:

See my update edited post.  Hopefully you’ll understand the difference between a right and privilege.  Regardless, with up to date science, it would be interesting to see how the courts considered an unborn baby with a beating heart.

Was someone talking about a doctor’s rights and I missed it?

Can you explain why the court said it was a woman’s right without referring to doctor’s rights? 

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Was someone talking about a doctor’s rights and I missed it?

Can you explain why the court said it was a woman’s right without referring to doctor’s rights? 

they said it was a right, because they were liberal judicial activists, so they just made up a "right" that doesn't exist, because they felt it was the right thing to do

it had nothing to do with the constitution, which clearly makes the issue of abortion, a state issue rather than a federal issue, as per 10th amendment

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

they said it was a right, because they were liberal judicial activists,

Do you think the fact that they were “liberal judicial activists” has any bearing on the legality of abortion the way it currently stands in Canada?

By that I mean, you may disagree with the ruling, but does the fact that you disagree mean that it is not a right?  

Didn’t these “liberal judicial activists” have the legal power to define what a right is?

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think the fact that they were “liberal judicial activists” has any bearing on the legality of abortion the way it currently stands in Canada?

By that I mean, you may disagree with the ruling, but does the fact that you disagree mean that it is not a right?  

Didn’t these “liberal judicial activists” have the legal power to define what a right is?

there is no law on abortion in Canada

it isn't a right here

in Canada it is a federal issue

and they take no stance on it

 

in America it is a state issue

the SCOTUS made it a federal issue

in contravention of an actual right

the 10th amendment

and they took a stance on it

 

legally speaking, America is far more pro-abortion than Canada on the federal level

Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there is no law on abortion in Canada

in Canada it is a federal issue

in America it is a state issue

the SCOTUS made it a federal issue, in contravention of an actual right, the 10th amendment

I guess you answered a question I didn’t ask…. 

So in Canada it’s a right?  

But you disagree with SCOTUS, and, in your expert legal opinion, they violated the 10th Amendment (you need to tell the lawyers down there about this) so you think the right in the USA is null and void because of that?

 

(tbh, I have no idea who brought up abortion in a thread about protesting at hospitals…. But here we are)

Edited September 23, 2021 by TreeBeard

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I guess you answered a question I didn’t ask…. 

So in Canada it’s a right?  

But you disagree with SCOTUS, and, in your expert legal opinion, they violated the 10th Amendment (you need to tell the lawyers down there about this) so you think the right in the USA is null and void because of that?

it is not a right in Canada

they simply choose not to make a law restricting it

though they could if they wanted to

there is constitutional right that prevents them from doing so

 

in America it is a state issue, not a federal issue

the SCOTUS incorrectly made it federal issue, with their bullshit ruling in Roe v Wade

there is a constitutional right that prevents them from doing so, but the SCOTUS ignored it and continues to ignore it

Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it is not a right in Canada

they simply choose not to make a law restricting it

though they could if they wanted to

 

in America it is a state issue, not a federal issue

the SCOTUS incorrectly made it federal issue, with their bullshit ruling in Roe v Wade

So in Canada you think it’s not a right, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is?  Did I get that correct?

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

So in Canada you think it’s not a right, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is?  Did I get that correct?

the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in Canada

there is no right to an abortion in Canada

they pretended there was one in America though

even though it is totally unconstitutional to do so

on the federal level

America is more pro-abortion than Canada

it used to take the current Canadian position federally, prior to 1972 though

the difference being that America left it up to the states, while Canada handled it at the federal level

Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in Canada

there is no right to an abortion in Canada

they pretended there was one in America though

even though it is totally unconstitutional to do so

on the federal level

America is more pro-abortion than Canada

it used to the Canadian position, prior to 1972 though

You’re mixing up Canada and the USA as if they are the same thing.  Where did I say the SCOTUS has anything to do with Canada?  I purposely put IN CANADA as the first two words so we could get away from this confusion.

So, IN CANADA, our CANADIAN Supreme Court ruled that denying a woman an abortion violated Section 7 of the Charter of Rights.  I think we can agree that that is what they did?

So, the CANADIAN Supreme Court made abortion a right in Canada.  They had the legal power to do so, whether we agree with the ruling or not.  I think we can agree that the Supreme Court has the legal power to do that, right?

So when you say it’s not a right IN CANADA, this is your opinion of what should be, not what actually is?