Enough is enough. Ban protests outside hospitals.

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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?

there is no law regarding abortion in Canada

there is no right preventing a law that restricts abortion from being passed in Canada either

if you think there is, you are mistaken

the old law was struck down

but there is nothing preventing a new law from replacing it

aside from the political will to do so

which is why it hasn't been replaced yet

Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

freedom of speech is more important

than some nurses and doctors

Maybe I’ll try and get back to the original topic with a question…

How does the right to life, liberty and personal security of a heart attack victim trying to recover in a hospital compare to the right to protest?

 They can protest anywhere, while the heart attack patient is a captive of their physical limitations and is stuck in that hospital.  Do you think that should be considered?

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there is no law regarding abortion in Canada

there is no right preventing a law that restricts abortion from being passed in Canada either

if you think there is, you are mistaken

So what did the CANADIAN Supreme Court mean when they explicitly stated that the law violated a woman’s right under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights?

Did the CANADIAN Supreme Court rule that abortion was a right?  Or is everyone just wrong about that?

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Maybe I’ll try and get back to the original topic with a question…

How does the right to life, liberty and personal security of a heart attack victim trying to recover in a hospital compare to the right to protest?

 They can protest anywhere, while the heart attack patient is a captive of their physical limitations and is stuck in that hospital.  Do you think that should be considered?

it is already illegal to prevent access to hospitals without having to ban protests outside of them

have you considered that your reason for restricting free speech

has nothing to do with protecting patients or staff, because they already protected by laws that don't restrict free speech?

Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

So what did the CANADIAN Supreme Court mean when they explicitly stated that the law violated a woman’s right under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights?

Did the CANADIAN Supreme Court rule that abortion was a right?  Or is everyone just wrong about that?

they are wrong about that

the court struck down the old law

there is no right to an abortion in Section 7 of the Charter

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

they are wrong about that

the court struck down the old law

there is no right to an abortion in Section 7 of the Charter

Your opinion is that the court was wrong.  I get that.

But, let’s speak in legalese here for a second…. The ones who decide on actual rights of Canadians is ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada, and not your opinion, correct?

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Your opinion is that the court was wrong.  I get that.

But, let’s speak in legalese here for a second…. The ones who decide on actual rights of Canadians is ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada, and not your opinion, correct?

the Court struck down the old law

it could easily not strike down a new law

the Court never said there was a right to an abortion

they said the old law violated other rights

they didn't make up a new right they pulled out of their ass, like Roe v Wade did

you are the one confusing Canada with America

not me

Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

the Court struck down the old law

it could easily not strike down a new law

the Court never said there was a right to an abortion

they said the old law violated other rights

they didn't make up.a new right, like Roe v Wade did

How does a law violate a right, if there is no right?

Doesn’t a right have to exist for the law to say that a right was violated?

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

How does a law violate a right, if there is no right?

Doesn’t a right have to exist for the law to say that a right was violated?

it violated other rights, not a right to an abortion, which was never a right in Canada

in America, apparently a right doesn't have to exist

before the Supreme Court can claim someone violated that imaginary right

while violating an actual right

to create the legal justification to enforce that imaginary right

that's why Roe v Wade is such a bad decision

it sets a terrible precedent

thankfully Canada had the good sense not to do that

Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Shady]

1 hour 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? 

It’s really simple.  Doctors aren’t slaves.  That’s why a right to an abortion makes no sense, along with the science based reasons.  Regardless this is thread drift and doesn’t belong in this topic discussion.  Btw, at various points in history, courts ruled that involuntary sterilization was legal.  Your crutch is relying on decisions from the 1960s and 70s based on outstayed science and outdated reason.  But that’s for a different discussion.

[TreeBeard]

12 minutes ago, Shady said:

It’s really simple.  Doctors aren’t slaves.  That’s why a right to an abortion makes no sense, along with the science based reasons.  Regardless this is thread drift and doesn’t belong in this topic discussion.  Btw, at various points in history, courts ruled that involuntary sterilization was legal.  Your crutch is relying on decisions from the 1960s and 70s based on outstayed science and outdated reason.  But that’s for a different discussion.

Was R. v Morgentaler about doctor’s rights?  Or did if confirm that the law in question violated a woman’s right under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights?

[Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, EastCanada90 said:

womans choice of there own body learn to respect it.

I didn’t know there was only one body in a pregnant woman.  

[Aristides]

Doctors to not have to provide abortions in Canada.

15 hours ago, Shady said:

It’s really simple.  Doctors aren’t slaves.  That’s why a right to an abortion makes no sense, along with the science based reasons.  Regardless this is thread drift and doesn’t belong in this topic discussion.  Btw, at various points in history, courts ruled that involuntary sterilization was legal.  Your crutch is relying on decisions from the 1960s and 70s based on outstayed science and outdated reason.  But that’s for a different discussion.

Their rights aren’t being violated.

[TreeBeard]

19 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

How does the right to life, liberty and personal security of a heart attack victim trying to recover in a hospital compare to the right to protest?

 They can protest anywhere, while the heart attack patient is a captive of their physical limitations and is stuck in that hospital.  Do you think that should be considered?

Doe anyone want to get back on topic?  I had questions…

[WestCanMan]

People can protest in front of hospitals if they want. 

Done.

[Yzermandius19]

On 9/23/2021 at 5:37 PM, TreeBeard said:

How does the right to life, liberty and personal security of a heart attack victim trying to recover in a hospital compare to the right to protest?

there is no conflict between the two rights

one right doesn't need to be curtailed to protect the other right

another stupid question

 

you can have both

the right of life, liberty and personal security of hospital patients protected

while allowing the right to protest outside of hospitals

it is already illegal for protesters to prevent access

of staff and patients to hospitals

without having to ban the protests

no new law is required to prevent that

 

you simply want to ban protests outside of hospitals

for no good reason

while pretending as if there is one

to front as if you have some moral high ground

on those who don't want to ban it

but you don't have the moral high ground

your position on the issue is deeply immoral

Edited September 25, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[OftenWrong]

Like said, doctors and nurses, whom are presumably knowledgeable in the medical sciences, are the ones trying to speak out and be heard. When they do, they are now being made as pariahs by the System.

Examples from https://news.google.com/search?q=doctors

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/college-physicians-surgeons-alberta-loses-patience-1.6184892

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-modelling-data-withheld-1.6188262

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-childrens-hospital-doctors-face-criticism-for-letters-opposing-vaccine-mandate

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-stephen-malthouse-doctors-petition-college-1.6092437

 

But I was just sayin, is all.  

Edited September 25, 2021 by OftenWrong
removed the comma splice

[dialamah]

On 9/23/2021 at 12:18 PM, OftenWrong said:

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

Where were you?  Complaining about masks and lockdowns, as I recall, two things that demonstrably reduced the spread of Covid. Now you complain about vaccines, hmmm.  Are you in the pay of those Chinese lab workers who unleashed this virus into the world?  Cause you seem absolutely determined that as many people die from it as possible.

[Aristides]

I don't think an new law is required but expect existing laws to be  enforced and higher penalties for breaking them. Blocking ambulance bays as was done at St. Pauls should get jail time.

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I don't think an new law is required but expect existing laws to be  enforced and higher penalties for breaking them. Blocking ambulance bays as was done at St. Pauls should get jail time.

that is an infinitely more rational position than banning free speech

protip to those who support banning the protests

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

that is an infinitely more rational position than banning free speech

protip to those who support banning the protests

Of course preventing protestors from blocking hospitals would require bubble zones. 

[Yzermandius19]

42 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Of course preventing protestors from blocking hospitals would require bubble zones. 

it would simply require those who violate the law, to be punished accordingly

and those who don't do that, are of course free to protest

absolutely no change is required, that is the status quo

there is no need to fix something that isn't broken

Edited September 25, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

23 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it would simply require those who violate the law, to be punished accordingly

and those who don't do that, are of course free to protest

absolutely no change is required, that is the status quo

there is no need to fix something that isn't broken

No, it would require access routes that were off limits to every one except first responders or people dropping off at ER. If you have to arrest someone it means they are already blocking access.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Aristides

[Yzermandius19]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

No, it would require access routes that were off limits to every one except first responders or people dropping off at ER. If you have to arrest someone it means they are already blocking access.

blocking access is already illegal

no new law required

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

blocking access is already illegal

no new law required

Since you are so supportive of these people, can you explain why are they protesting at hospitals anyway; they have nothing to do with the immunization policies of the government?  That just seems stupid to me.