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.
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.