What Canadian rights does this mandatory stuff violate? Here ya go....
(media.omegacanada.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
Lawyer here. This isn't a good post.
First, lets start from the top. You're using section 2 and 7 to absurd levels that may benefit you in this instance, but trust me, you do NOT want that broad use of section 2 (maybe section 2(b) we can leave without limits, but TRUST ME you do not want religions getting more rights under 2(a).
Now your section 2b I(i'm assuming you're not arguing freedom of religion) argument is entirely useless. There's no section 2 argument on any of the items you mentioned.
Section 15 could apply for masks and someone with a disability. That is IT. Section 8 and 9 isn't violated.
Now section 7 you may have something. You could potentially add a section 7 argument to a disabled person (could actually violate both) forced to wear a mask if there are physiological consequences.
So why would manditory vacines violate 2 (retarded) and not section 7 (actually a STRONG section 7 argument)? This makes the entire post clearly written by a half retarded person that has never entered a court room before. Literally your strongest argument by far would be compelled vacines as a s 7 violation. I'd bet that would actually win, yet it's not even on there. Furter, closure of business and churches would potentially violate 7 and 2b respectively.
Everything else is nonsense. But what do I know, I'm just a full time barrister.
Lol! I was hoping someone with REAL knowledge would show up here and separate the men from the boys. The community is growing here and it’s pool of knowledge to bounce stuff off that’s way over my head.
I think we are all looking for the magic answer of how we can defend our freedoms against the lies. I guess every case is different and there is no easy answer. But what do I know.... I’m just a freedom loving Canadian that’s had the wool pulled over my eyes for too long! Cheers ?
Yeah sorry bro, no disrespect meant at all, just offering a legal opinion. TBH there is a charter argument, but section 7 and vacines is by a large margin the strongest one. Based on what I know about section 7 (minimal, I'm a commercial litigator), I think that this argument would pass. But we have to be careful since the charter essentially fucks conservaatives 98% of the time, so we don't want too much caselaw to strengthen it, know what I mean? You literally have a constitutionally enshrined act that allows racism towards white males. Lets try and get rid of it, rather than strengthen it. We never needed the charter, the BoR covered the field adequately. Some of the most frustrating decisions in Canadian history are due to the charter. Sorry, rant over. Cheers.
None taken! You’re in-site is extremely valuable. I assume everybody here has a different skill set. Together we might actually get somewhere in this clucked country.
I operate a business so I see first hand the red tape thrown at us from the government. You see the actual laws behind that red tape. Most people are too busy to make a difference, but these bullshit lock downs are giving us that time!
Section 7 - "security of persons" is what would be violated by mandatory vaccines right? It's something like bodily integrity if I understand correctly.
Exactly.
As I wrote below, I suspect most judges in Canada would likely accept a s. 1 argument justifying curtailing certain rights because of the pandemic. They would likely give the government the benefit of the doubt and allow the abrogation of rights on a public health or similar basis. I wouldn’t if I were a judge. But judges are largely not a conservative group. That would make sustaining any argument under ss. 2 or 7 very difficult.
I agree, hence why most if not all of them would fail.