I’m not sure what’s happening in other countries or what a “vaccine mandate” is even understood to be colloquially but one of the more frustrating things is that my provincial government is...
I’m not sure what’s happening in other countries or what a “vaccine mandate” is even understood to be colloquially but one of the more frustrating things is that my provincial government is talking about a vaccine passport and most of the blowback I’ve seen is directed at a mandate.
No one is mandating that you do anything — but you’re also not entitled to all the benefits of living in a society if you’re not prepared to shoulder any of the responsibility.
You’re missing a very deliberate all the benefits in my quote. And I just don’t see how comparing vaccine passports to ghettos is an even remotely fair comparison. Are we participating in the...
You’re missing a very deliberate all the benefits in my quote.
And I just don’t see how comparing vaccine passports to ghettos is an even remotely fair comparison. Are we participating in the “ghettoization” of people who don’t pay taxes or endanger society and end up in jail? No, because it’s ridiculous to think that we are discriminating against tax evaders like it’s some sort of protected class of citizens.
More to the point, as this article lays out much better than I, is that individual rights are always balanced against the rights of others. (Most) unvaccinated people can easily choose to get vaccinated. People, like my mom who is battling cancer, can’t even go to the grocery store right now because of all this — what about their rights to livelihood?
You quoted Section 6 of the Charter but skipped over Section 1, which is incredibly relevant since it's the part which makes it clear that none of our rights are absolute: And in case you want to...
You quoted Section 6 of the Charter but skipped over Section 1, which is incredibly relevant since it's the part which makes it clear that none of our rights are absolute:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 1 effects a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society by permitting limits to be placed on guaranteed rights and freedoms. "Most modern constitutions recognize that rights are not absolute and can be limited if this is necessary to achieve an important objective and if the limit is appropriately tailored, or proportionate." (Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610, at paragraph 36).
3. The Oakes test
A limit on a Charter right must be “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified.” The applicable test was originally set out in Oakes and is now well-established.
Is the legislative goal pressing and substantial? i.e., is the objective sufficiently important to justify limiting a Charter right?
Is there proportionality between the objective and the means used to achieve it?
The second branch of the test has three elements:
a. "Rational Connection": the limit must be rationally connected to the objective. There must be a causal link between the impugned measure and the pressing and substantial objective;
b. "Minimal Impairment": the limit must impair the right or freedom no more than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the objective. The government will be required to show that there are no less rights-impairing means of achieving the objective “in a real and substantial manner”;
c. "Final Balancing": there must be proportionality between the deleterious and salutary effects of the law.
Application of the Oakes test should not be approached in a mechanistic fashion; rather, it should be applied flexibly, having regard to the factual and social context of each case.
Now, whether the Courts will consider all the travel restrictions, and any potential vaccine mandates/vaccine passports, as passing the Oakes test and all the various other considerations is not currently known. However, given the seriousness of the pandemic I suspect most of the current and even proposed limitations on our rights would be considered allowable under these somewhat dire circumstances. I am not a Constitutional lawyer or legal scholar though, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯... like everyone else, I will just have to wait and see what the Courts decide if any of the restrictions get challenged.
The important distinvtion is that members of this class choose to join it. And if, as a class, you choose to endanger others, society is right to segregate you and reduce your entitlement to...
The important distinvtion is that members of this class choose to join it. And if, as a class, you choose to endanger others, society is right to segregate you and reduce your entitlement to social benefits.
I’ll note that the individual rights afforded in the constitution are all legally alienable by the constitution itself except one: the right to due process. And if by due process the government...
I’ll note that the individual rights afforded in the constitution are all legally alienable by the constitution itself except one: the right to due process. And if by due process the government concludes people who by their choices endanger society at large, it has the right, and maybe the duty, to take protective action.
There is legit argument about what constitutes due process in this case, but i see no reason it should not be done.
I would be upset with this if we were doing it to a group of people based on their immutable properties (gender, race, sexual orientation), but in reality their "ghettoization" is entirely of...
You're verging on ghettoizing a class of citizens.
I would be upset with this if we were doing it to a group of people based on their immutable properties (gender, race, sexual orientation), but in reality their "ghettoization" is entirely of their own choosing. Vaccine mandates have already been a prevalent in public schools for the better part of a century. Vaccine requirements to collect on certain public benefits are not a new concept.
Those of us who actually understand what a pandemic is and how vaccines work are fully entitled to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves from people who pose a dangerous risk to our health. That includes changing the social contract through the democratic process to protect ourselves from those who actively put our health and safety at risk.
Mind you, I'm not a Canadian bear, I'm one of your friendly neighbors to the south, but as far as accessing the three benefits of being a Canadian citizen that you quoted, I'd like to add my three...
Mind you, I'm not a Canadian bear, I'm one of your friendly neighbors to the south, but as far as accessing the three benefits of being a Canadian citizen that you quoted, I'd like to add my three cents (damn inflation).
(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
That is not at issue. Any citizen is free to enter, exit, or stay, whether or not they are vaccinated. But that does not preclude the possibility of having (un)common-sense restrictions attached. For example, if you return to Canada from a recognized area of high COVID-19 transmission, regardless of vaccination, you may have to quarantine upon entry and follow public health orders, and it might be at your own expense.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right:
to move to and take up residence in any province; and
to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Movement of the un-vaccinated would not be restricted as far as I'm aware, but that could change, because the laws were written with the assumption that people are otherwise unencumbered, that everyone they're referring to wanted to cooperate and be part of society, and not an active pandemic-level disease carrier, which is not the right of anyone. For example, any country restricts the right of its citizens to move - even if that is a constitutional freedom - if they are accused of a crime.
As far as the right to pursue a livelihood, that's unaffected because you can easily work from home, where you do not put others in danger. Again, (un)common-sense restrictions may be attached.
I can't read due to paywall but one thing I forgot to mention in @kfwyre's thread yesterday is that there is more and more serious talk about a global vaccine mandate in Belgium. Correct me if I'm...
I can't read due to paywall but one thing I forgot to mention in @kfwyre's thread yesterday is that there is more and more serious talk about a global vaccine mandate in Belgium. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's one of the first countries to seriously consider it, and at this point it feels like politicians are trying to ease us into it slowly.
Fact is, when almost all the people in hospitals are unvaccinated... What else can you do.
Yeah, people yelling about personal freedom never seem to apply it to vulnerable populations. I can't count the number of times I've seen people yell at others to "stay at home if you're afraid."...
Yeah, people yelling about personal freedom never seem to apply it to vulnerable populations. I can't count the number of times I've seen people yell at others to "stay at home if you're afraid." So... You don't want your freedom curtailed by a mask, vaccine, or other precaution, but you're fine with some people being stuck in their homes indefinitely...?
"But it's their choice to stay at home. Noone's forcing them to stay home." ... as the pro-freedom people have rightly pointed out. You can't argue in favour of mandating vaccines by pointing to...
but you're fine with some people being stuck in their homes indefinitely...?
"But it's their choice to stay at home. Noone's forcing them to stay home."
... as the pro-freedom people have rightly pointed out.
You can't argue in favour of mandating vaccines by pointing to people who are exercising a free choice to stay home.
Well, yes, but if we prevent the unvaccinated from participating in social life in some meaningful ways, it's their free choice to not get vaccinated. You can just get the vaccine. Compare then,...
"But it's their choice to stay at home. Noone's forcing them to stay home."
Well, yes, but if we prevent the unvaccinated from participating in social life in some meaningful ways, it's their free choice to not get vaccinated. You can just get the vaccine.
Compare then, people who are making a much less free choice to stay home: Those with significant immune deficiencies who can not get the vaccine or will still be at significant risk of death if they get it. Those who can't get the vaccine because they're too young. Is it really their free choice to stay home? Or are they doing it due to a significant threat to their health?
Being recklessly endangered by people too selfish to live as part of a society isn't something one should just accept. A person's liberties end where they start to adversely affect other people. (Whether a vaccine mandate is a reasonable extension of that doctrine is subjective, and I'm not sure where I stand. But it certainly isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, or at least there are societies/ legal systems that would beg to differ.)
I was hoping for, and expecting, a more legalistic essay, based in laws rather than persuasive arguments. Why doesn't this essay rely on actual legal precedent, rather than saying that people need...
I was hoping for, and expecting, a more legalistic essay, based in laws rather than persuasive arguments.
Why doesn't this essay rely on actual legal precedent, rather than saying that people need to take vaccines to protect other people? The people who refuse to get vaccinated will not be swayed by such an argument. The obvious retort is that, if someone wants to be protected from the coronavirus, then they should get vaccinated; it's not my responsibility to get vaccinated for their protection.
For example:
In this context, Covid-19 vaccine mandates — much like mask mandates — are public health measures necessary to protect people from severe illness and death. They are therefore permissible in many settings where the unvaccinated pose a risk to others, including schools and universities, hospitals, restaurants and bars, workplaces and businesses open to the public.
All the settings named in the above section are private premises. The owner and/or manager of those private premises can set conditions for entry into their private premises if they so choose. For example, banks require people to remove helmets and other face coverings when they enter a bank branch. The owner and/or manager of a customer-facing business can also set conditions for serving customers in those businesses if they so choose. For examples, pubs can require people to wear a shirt and shoes to be served.
There are better arguments to be made in favour of vaccine mandates than those found in this essay.
The ACLU are a smart bunch...probably the strongest cluster of civil rights lawyers in the world. This was clearly intended as a public-support arguement, not a purely legal one. I personally also...
The ACLU are a smart bunch...probably the strongest cluster of civil rights lawyers in the world. This was clearly intended as a public-support arguement, not a purely legal one.
I personally also don't think any space where the general populous would be welcomed (like a storefront, bank, bar, or hospital) is a private space at all, regardless of ownership. If two strangers can meet there, and they didn't need to be invited, the space is public...regardless of ownership. But I'm rambling.
While private establishments do have some say on the rules for their establishment.... they also can't ban brown or gay people from them. The ACLU has helped make this happen. Privately owned establishments also have to do other things in the name of public safety, like adhere to fire and health codes.
Consider that the ACLU will defend the KKK and Nazis in court for freedom of speech cases. Them supporting vaccinne mandates is a big deal, one I am quite happy about.
The difference between "brown people" and anti-vaxxers is that the latter are not a protected class. You aren't "born" an anti-vaxxer, it's not some immutable characteristic of your being like...
The difference between "brown people" and anti-vaxxers is that the latter are not a protected class. You aren't "born" an anti-vaxxer, it's not some immutable characteristic of your being like race or sex. Anti-vaxxers actively make a choice that turns them into a public safety hazard, so they are subject to the social consequences of their decisions.
"Brown people" do not choose to be minorities, they are born that way. Their skin color does not pose any possible threat to anyone else. There is no practical justification for limiting their use of public or private facilities enjoyed by non-minorities, so we ban that discrimination.
Perhaps I was unclear. This was the point I was trying to highlight as flawed Those minority civil liberties were argued against using this same 'but muh property, my rules' arguement. And I...
Perhaps I was unclear. This was the point I was trying to highlight as flawed
The owner and/or manager of a customer-facing business can also set conditions for serving customers in those businesses if they so choose.
Those minority civil liberties were argued against using this same 'but muh property, my rules' arguement. And I mostly just wanted to highlight that the ACLU helped those liberties take force.
Much like raising drinking age to 21, we don't need to mandate vaccinnes. We just need to make it impossible to leave your home if you are choosing (for non-medical reasons) to remain unvaccinated.
Edit: Even easier method: Make employers who have an outbreak and can't prove their employees are vaccinnated directly liable for all costs incurred by their employees and anyone their employees come in contact with.
What’s interesting is my company is mandating vaccines specifically because OSHA considers COVID-19 a workplace hazard and upper management is concerned about liability as it relates to...
Even easier method: Make employers who have an outbreak and can't prove their employees are vaccinnated directly liable for all costs incurred by their employees and anyone their employees come in contact with.
What’s interesting is my company is mandating vaccines specifically because OSHA considers COVID-19 a workplace hazard and upper management is concerned about liability as it relates to unvaccinated employees (plus we have a surge of infections on site).
I think a crucial aspect here is that the unwillingness to get vaccinated has more than just these immediate effects. By not getting vaccinated, you (not you, AA, I think I remember you're...
I think a crucial aspect here is that the unwillingness to get vaccinated has more than just these immediate effects. By not getting vaccinated, you (not you, AA, I think I remember you're vaccinated) fuel the pandemic. This will affect society at large adversely in several ways:
Firstly: You'll get sick sooner or later. You might need intensive care. In most societies, others will have to subsidize that through tax or insurance money.
You will then also take up intensive care capacity, which has been at a premium recently life-saving care like cancer treatments are being delayed.
And you haven't even infected anyone. By not getting vaccinated, you make that more likely. By how much, unclear, but considering most vaccinated people don't develop symptoms anymore and both the time window for and the concentration of virus excretions are reduced, we can assume that it's going to be a factor. And by infecting others, you're partially responsible for what happens to them.
But because society isn't generally as cruel and uncaring as you (again, not you) are, we use non-pharmaceutical interventions to curb the spread of the virus. Those restrict my liberties too. We could stop all of that, if you just accepted a sore arm for a day.
These are all ways in which someone not getting vaccinated will affect me adversely. I dunno, sounds close enough to a legal case for a main stream publication if you ask me. Might be that formally, that case is also quite hard to make in the US and going to be very nuanced.
As a fun excursion, I need all of one article of the german constitution to argue this case: Your personal freedoms are in art. 2 - right there with them is that they shall not violate the rights of others. Right next to that, second paragraph, is myright to physical health. Preventably infecting me would be a good way to violate that.
Mandating vaccination against COVID-19 in order to curtail a global pandemic seems fair as long as it's done under some sort of emergency provision. There are a few other cases where freedoms are...
Mandating vaccination against COVID-19 in order to curtail a global pandemic seems fair as long as it's done under some sort of emergency provision. There are a few other cases where freedoms are limited due to circumstances, e.g war & natural disasters. However, there is a difference in making these types of mandates permanent and some possibly unforseen consequences.
There is a slippery slope argument. If we mandate vaccination, what other medical procedures must you perform in order to retain your benefits? From seasonal flue shots, other more rare diseases? To you can't travel if your diagnosed with depression or have restless leg syndrome. Even if you limit it to transmissible diseases clearly there is a spectrum and somewhere a decision needs to be made about what is ok.
Who will bear the cost? How will it be enforced? If I am strapped for cash and need to travel for some reason will the cost of whatever vaccines I need just be included in the ticket price? What if I hitch hike or take my car? Will we have spot checks around our countries where people are stopped and their vaccination status validated? Is there a fine? Are you incarcerated? What's the consequence?
If you want a system where your medical status determines some freedoms these are some of the questions you will need to answer. Coming to agreement on this on the general case as opposed to the specific emergency case associated with COVID-19 seems like it will (and should) take some time...
We have had vaccine mandates for a very long time already. You arent allowed to enter most countries without a vaccination record showing that you have gotten shots for things like tetanus, yellow...
We have had vaccine mandates for a very long time already. You arent allowed to enter most countries without a vaccination record showing that you have gotten shots for things like tetanus, yellow fever, etc.
EDIT: and as its been pointed out, most universitys and schools reqire vaccine records to attend class. Now that I think about it, I had to release my vaccine papers to both universities Ive attended in order to be accepted.
This is what confuses me. It's not a new thing to have vaccine mandates at all and they've not been questioned as for anything other than public safety.
This is what confuses me. It's not a new thing to have vaccine mandates at all and they've not been questioned as for anything other than public safety.
Are you sure? I've travelled pretty extensively and never had to show any vaccination records as far as I can remember. Maybe it is due to me comming from Sweden with a robust vaccination program,...
Are you sure? I've travelled pretty extensively and never had to show any vaccination records as far as I can remember. Maybe it is due to me comming from Sweden with a robust vaccination program, but I can't recall ever having to prove actual vaccination status as part of entering another country (before covid limitations). Besides I imagine these mandates would apply inside a country not just when crossing borders right?
It may depend on where you come from. I traveled to and from chad, africa and the US pretty exensively as a kid, and vaccine records were required to get a visa for chad or france. had to get the...
It may depend on where you come from. I traveled to and from chad, africa and the US pretty exensively as a kid, and vaccine records were required to get a visa for chad or france. had to get the tropical disease package as well. Pretty much the only vaccines I didnt get were for bioweapons.
Now that I think more closely when I got a wok visa for NZ I did have to have a few checkups (TBC screening IIRC), there were probably some additional things I've forgotten there. I did get a...
Now that I think more closely when I got a wok visa for NZ I did have to have a few checkups (TBC screening IIRC), there were probably some additional things I've forgotten there.
I did get a bunch of vaccinations done when travelling that have been recommended when going to different areas, India, Thailand, China, Peru, Saudi Arabia etc. But I can't recall if these were required for entry...
For an internal example, I was required to bring my vaccination records to my (public) university after registration in order to be able to register for classes. I don't have children myself, but...
For an internal example, I was required to bring my vaccination records to my (public) university after registration in order to be able to register for classes. I don't have children myself, but my parents had to bring mine to my elementary school back when I started kindergarten as well, in the mid 90s. My father had to turn his in to the military when he joined, in addition to getting a few for tropical diseases that aren't part of the standard regimen. My mother works in healthcare and has been required to get annual flu shots (on top of the standard shot regimens) as a condition of employment for her entire career, including working for a state-run facility. She still has her CDC vax card for H1N1 back in 2009, even!
The military one is its own beast since that entails losing some civilian rights while in active service, but it's been a thing for public school attendance (which is a right) at all levels for a very long time.
Speaking as someone who thinks much about slippery slopes, this one is pretty clear: If there exists non-invasive method which prevents you from catching and retransmitting a sickness, you must do...
There is a slippery slope argument. If we mandate vaccination, what other medical procedures must you perform in order to retain your benefits? From seasonal flue shots, other more rare diseases? To you can't travel if your diagnosed with depression or have restless leg syndrome. Even if you limit it to transmissible diseases clearly there is a spectrum and somewhere a decision needs to be made about what is ok.
Speaking as someone who thinks much about slippery slopes, this one is pretty clear:
If there exists non-invasive method which prevents you from catching and retransmitting a sickness, you must do it. Vaccination is not a medical treatment. It is a preventative measure to avoid medical treatment in the future.
Prior to COVID, if you told me the seasonal flu vaccinne was being mandated, I'd say 'about damn time!'
Seems like with a lot of public policy, there is not a lot of design work going on: everyone is talking about mandates like they are the only solution, when I'm sure we could think of other ways...
Seems like with a lot of public policy, there is not a lot of design work going on: everyone is talking about mandates like they are the only solution, when I'm sure we could think of other ways to increase the proportion of vaccinated in the population, protect the vulnerable, and/or reduce transmission risk in particular environments. We need to explore many solutions in detail before we buy in to any one in particular.
The first idea that comes to my mind as the 'opposite' of a mandate would be an incentive: pay people $100 once they have been double jabbed. I've just pulled that number out of thin air, of course a policy body would need to determine the balance between the impact on the public budget and how effective it will be at incentivising different groups -- in particular, does it incentivise the groups who are not currently vaxxing voluntarilty? But it's just one example of a different approach to this problem.
The issue I see with the "mandate plus passports" solution is that some people can't get vaccinated because of underlying health conditions. Thus we would need to introduce some kind of exemption process, which might be quite costly, complex, and slow, and which essentially requires people with severe health conditions to 'out' themselves to prevent being ostracised as anti-vax, or in order to access those services which now require a passport. It's another situation where a policy trades off protecting one vulnerable group by making another vulnerable group even worse off.
Yea this is a legitimate concern as well. Also doubly costly when every anti-vaxx person tries their hardest to exempt themselves. I don't think this is an effective solution -- I think it's been...
The issue I see with the "mandate plus passports" solution is that some people can't get vaccinated because of underlying health conditions. Thus we would need to introduce some kind of exemption process, which might be quite costly, complex, and slow, and which essentially requires people with severe health conditions to 'out' themselves to prevent being ostracised as anti-vax, or in order to access those services which now require a passport. It's another situation where a policy trades off protecting one vulnerable group by making another vulnerable group even worse off.
Yea this is a legitimate concern as well.
Thus we would need to introduce some kind of exemption process, which might be quite costly, complex, and slow
Also doubly costly when every anti-vaxx person tries their hardest to exempt themselves.
in particular, does it incentivise the groups who are not currently vaxxing voluntarilty? But it's just one example of a different approach to this problem.
I don't think this is an effective solution -- I think it's been tried in some states with limited success. I do think there is a lot of space to explore within the passport model itself -- if you can minimize the impact on day-to-day life while still offering a strong incentive to get vaccinated you can avoid some of the issues you mention above. Requiring a passport for large events, flights, nightclubs etc might be enough. You can also make it temporary, where if we hit X% vaccinated in two years it gets lifted. If we accept that there is always going to be some level of free riders, the goal doesn't need to be for everyone to get jabbed, just enough of the population to reduce the threat of COVID.
I’m not sure what’s happening in other countries or what a “vaccine mandate” is even understood to be colloquially but one of the more frustrating things is that my provincial government is talking about a vaccine passport and most of the blowback I’ve seen is directed at a mandate.
No one is mandating that you do anything — but you’re also not entitled to all the benefits of living in a society if you’re not prepared to shoulder any of the responsibility.
You’re missing a very deliberate all the benefits in my quote.
And I just don’t see how comparing vaccine passports to ghettos is an even remotely fair comparison. Are we participating in the “ghettoization” of people who don’t pay taxes or endanger society and end up in jail? No, because it’s ridiculous to think that we are discriminating against tax evaders like it’s some sort of protected class of citizens.
More to the point, as this article lays out much better than I, is that individual rights are always balanced against the rights of others. (Most) unvaccinated people can easily choose to get vaccinated. People, like my mom who is battling cancer, can’t even go to the grocery store right now because of all this — what about their rights to livelihood?
You quoted Section 6 of the Charter but skipped over Section 1, which is incredibly relevant since it's the part which makes it clear that none of our rights are absolute:
And in case you want to know how that Section has previously been interpreted by our Courts:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html
(quote edited for relevance and clarity, but the whole thing is well worth reading, IMO)
Now, whether the Courts will consider all the travel restrictions, and any potential vaccine mandates/vaccine passports, as passing the Oakes test and all the various other considerations is not currently known. However, given the seriousness of the pandemic I suspect most of the current and even proposed limitations on our rights would be considered allowable under these somewhat dire circumstances. I am not a Constitutional lawyer or legal scholar though, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯... like everyone else, I will just have to wait and see what the Courts decide if any of the restrictions get challenged.
The important distinvtion is that members of this class choose to join it. And if, as a class, you choose to endanger others, society is right to segregate you and reduce your entitlement to social benefits.
I’ll note that the individual rights afforded in the constitution are all legally alienable by the constitution itself except one: the right to due process. And if by due process the government concludes people who by their choices endanger society at large, it has the right, and maybe the duty, to take protective action.
There is legit argument about what constitutes due process in this case, but i see no reason it should not be done.
I would be upset with this if we were doing it to a group of people based on their immutable properties (gender, race, sexual orientation), but in reality their "ghettoization" is entirely of their own choosing. Vaccine mandates have already been a prevalent in public schools for the better part of a century. Vaccine requirements to collect on certain public benefits are not a new concept.
Those of us who actually understand what a pandemic is and how vaccines work are fully entitled to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves from people who pose a dangerous risk to our health. That includes changing the social contract through the democratic process to protect ourselves from those who actively put our health and safety at risk.
Mind you, I'm not a Canadian bear, I'm one of your friendly neighbors to the south, but as far as accessing the three benefits of being a Canadian citizen that you quoted, I'd like to add my three cents (damn inflation).
That is not at issue. Any citizen is free to enter, exit, or stay, whether or not they are vaccinated. But that does not preclude the possibility of having (un)common-sense restrictions attached. For example, if you return to Canada from a recognized area of high COVID-19 transmission, regardless of vaccination, you may have to quarantine upon entry and follow public health orders, and it might be at your own expense.
Movement of the un-vaccinated would not be restricted as far as I'm aware, but that could change, because the laws were written with the assumption that people are otherwise unencumbered, that everyone they're referring to wanted to cooperate and be part of society, and not an active pandemic-level disease carrier, which is not the right of anyone. For example, any country restricts the right of its citizens to move - even if that is a constitutional freedom - if they are accused of a crime.
As far as the right to pursue a livelihood, that's unaffected because you can easily work from home, where you do not put others in danger. Again, (un)common-sense restrictions may be attached.
Yes, there is. See my reply about Section 1.
Very well put.
I can't read due to paywall but one thing I forgot to mention in @kfwyre's thread yesterday is that there is more and more serious talk about a global vaccine mandate in Belgium. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's one of the first countries to seriously consider it, and at this point it feels like politicians are trying to ease us into it slowly.
Fact is, when almost all the people in hospitals are unvaccinated... What else can you do.
Yeah, people yelling about personal freedom never seem to apply it to vulnerable populations. I can't count the number of times I've seen people yell at others to "stay at home if you're afraid." So... You don't want your freedom curtailed by a mask, vaccine, or other precaution, but you're fine with some people being stuck in their homes indefinitely...?
"But it's their choice to stay at home. Noone's forcing them to stay home."
... as the pro-freedom people have rightly pointed out.
You can't argue in favour of mandating vaccines by pointing to people who are exercising a free choice to stay home.
Well, yes, but if we prevent the unvaccinated from participating in social life in some meaningful ways, it's their free choice to not get vaccinated. You can just get the vaccine.
Compare then, people who are making a much less free choice to stay home: Those with significant immune deficiencies who can not get the vaccine or will still be at significant risk of death if they get it. Those who can't get the vaccine because they're too young. Is it really their free choice to stay home? Or are they doing it due to a significant threat to their health?
Being recklessly endangered by people too selfish to live as part of a society isn't something one should just accept. A person's liberties end where they start to adversely affect other people. (Whether a vaccine mandate is a reasonable extension of that doctrine is subjective, and I'm not sure where I stand. But it certainly isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, or at least there are societies/ legal systems that would beg to differ.)
I was hoping for, and expecting, a more legalistic essay, based in laws rather than persuasive arguments.
Why doesn't this essay rely on actual legal precedent, rather than saying that people need to take vaccines to protect other people? The people who refuse to get vaccinated will not be swayed by such an argument. The obvious retort is that, if someone wants to be protected from the coronavirus, then they should get vaccinated; it's not my responsibility to get vaccinated for their protection.
For example:
All the settings named in the above section are private premises. The owner and/or manager of those private premises can set conditions for entry into their private premises if they so choose. For example, banks require people to remove helmets and other face coverings when they enter a bank branch. The owner and/or manager of a customer-facing business can also set conditions for serving customers in those businesses if they so choose. For examples, pubs can require people to wear a shirt and shoes to be served.
There are better arguments to be made in favour of vaccine mandates than those found in this essay.
The ACLU are a smart bunch...probably the strongest cluster of civil rights lawyers in the world. This was clearly intended as a public-support arguement, not a purely legal one.
I personally also don't think any space where the general populous would be welcomed (like a storefront, bank, bar, or hospital) is a private space at all, regardless of ownership. If two strangers can meet there, and they didn't need to be invited, the space is public...regardless of ownership. But I'm rambling.
While private establishments do have some say on the rules for their establishment.... they also can't ban brown or gay people from them. The ACLU has helped make this happen. Privately owned establishments also have to do other things in the name of public safety, like adhere to fire and health codes.
Consider that the ACLU will defend the KKK and Nazis in court for freedom of speech cases. Them supporting vaccinne mandates is a big deal, one I am quite happy about.
The difference between "brown people" and anti-vaxxers is that the latter are not a protected class. You aren't "born" an anti-vaxxer, it's not some immutable characteristic of your being like race or sex. Anti-vaxxers actively make a choice that turns them into a public safety hazard, so they are subject to the social consequences of their decisions.
"Brown people" do not choose to be minorities, they are born that way. Their skin color does not pose any possible threat to anyone else. There is no practical justification for limiting their use of public or private facilities enjoyed by non-minorities, so we ban that discrimination.
Perhaps I was unclear. This was the point I was trying to highlight as flawed
Those minority civil liberties were argued against using this same 'but muh property, my rules' arguement. And I mostly just wanted to highlight that the ACLU helped those liberties take force.
Much like raising drinking age to 21, we don't need to mandate vaccinnes. We just need to make it impossible to leave your home if you are choosing (for non-medical reasons) to remain unvaccinated.
Edit: Even easier method: Make employers who have an outbreak and can't prove their employees are vaccinnated directly liable for all costs incurred by their employees and anyone their employees come in contact with.
What’s interesting is my company is mandating vaccines specifically because OSHA considers COVID-19 a workplace hazard and upper management is concerned about liability as it relates to unvaccinated employees (plus we have a surge of infections on site).
I think a crucial aspect here is that the unwillingness to get vaccinated has more than just these immediate effects. By not getting vaccinated, you (not you, AA, I think I remember you're vaccinated) fuel the pandemic. This will affect society at large adversely in several ways:
These are all ways in which someone not getting vaccinated will affect me adversely. I dunno, sounds close enough to a legal case for a main stream publication if you ask me. Might be that formally, that case is also quite hard to make in the US and going to be very nuanced.
As a fun excursion, I need all of one article of the german constitution to argue this case: Your personal freedoms are in art. 2 - right there with them is that they shall not violate the rights of others. Right next to that, second paragraph, is my right to physical health. Preventably infecting me would be a good way to violate that.
Mandating vaccination against COVID-19 in order to curtail a global pandemic seems fair as long as it's done under some sort of emergency provision. There are a few other cases where freedoms are limited due to circumstances, e.g war & natural disasters. However, there is a difference in making these types of mandates permanent and some possibly unforseen consequences.
There is a slippery slope argument. If we mandate vaccination, what other medical procedures must you perform in order to retain your benefits? From seasonal flue shots, other more rare diseases? To you can't travel if your diagnosed with depression or have restless leg syndrome. Even if you limit it to transmissible diseases clearly there is a spectrum and somewhere a decision needs to be made about what is ok.
Who will bear the cost? How will it be enforced? If I am strapped for cash and need to travel for some reason will the cost of whatever vaccines I need just be included in the ticket price? What if I hitch hike or take my car? Will we have spot checks around our countries where people are stopped and their vaccination status validated? Is there a fine? Are you incarcerated? What's the consequence?
If you want a system where your medical status determines some freedoms these are some of the questions you will need to answer. Coming to agreement on this on the general case as opposed to the specific emergency case associated with COVID-19 seems like it will (and should) take some time...
We have had vaccine mandates for a very long time already. You arent allowed to enter most countries without a vaccination record showing that you have gotten shots for things like tetanus, yellow fever, etc.
EDIT: and as its been pointed out, most universitys and schools reqire vaccine records to attend class. Now that I think about it, I had to release my vaccine papers to both universities Ive attended in order to be accepted.
This is what confuses me. It's not a new thing to have vaccine mandates at all and they've not been questioned as for anything other than public safety.
Are you sure? I've travelled pretty extensively and never had to show any vaccination records as far as I can remember. Maybe it is due to me comming from Sweden with a robust vaccination program, but I can't recall ever having to prove actual vaccination status as part of entering another country (before covid limitations). Besides I imagine these mandates would apply inside a country not just when crossing borders right?
It may depend on where you come from. I traveled to and from chad, africa and the US pretty exensively as a kid, and vaccine records were required to get a visa for chad or france. had to get the tropical disease package as well. Pretty much the only vaccines I didnt get were for bioweapons.
Now that I think more closely when I got a wok visa for NZ I did have to have a few checkups (TBC screening IIRC), there were probably some additional things I've forgotten there.
I did get a bunch of vaccinations done when travelling that have been recommended when going to different areas, India, Thailand, China, Peru, Saudi Arabia etc. But I can't recall if these were required for entry...
For an internal example, I was required to bring my vaccination records to my (public) university after registration in order to be able to register for classes. I don't have children myself, but my parents had to bring mine to my elementary school back when I started kindergarten as well, in the mid 90s. My father had to turn his in to the military when he joined, in addition to getting a few for tropical diseases that aren't part of the standard regimen. My mother works in healthcare and has been required to get annual flu shots (on top of the standard shot regimens) as a condition of employment for her entire career, including working for a state-run facility. She still has her CDC vax card for H1N1 back in 2009, even!
The military one is its own beast since that entails losing some civilian rights while in active service, but it's been a thing for public school attendance (which is a right) at all levels for a very long time.
Have you been to Africa or Central America? I've been to countries in both requiring them.
Speaking as someone who thinks much about slippery slopes, this one is pretty clear:
If there exists non-invasive method which prevents you from catching and retransmitting a sickness, you must do it. Vaccination is not a medical treatment. It is a preventative measure to avoid medical treatment in the future.
Prior to COVID, if you told me the seasonal flu vaccinne was being mandated, I'd say 'about damn time!'
It definitely is a medical procedure and there is some risk involved. It is just that the risk is tiny and the benefits super obvious!
Seems like with a lot of public policy, there is not a lot of design work going on: everyone is talking about mandates like they are the only solution, when I'm sure we could think of other ways to increase the proportion of vaccinated in the population, protect the vulnerable, and/or reduce transmission risk in particular environments. We need to explore many solutions in detail before we buy in to any one in particular.
The first idea that comes to my mind as the 'opposite' of a mandate would be an incentive: pay people $100 once they have been double jabbed. I've just pulled that number out of thin air, of course a policy body would need to determine the balance between the impact on the public budget and how effective it will be at incentivising different groups -- in particular, does it incentivise the groups who are not currently vaxxing voluntarilty? But it's just one example of a different approach to this problem.
The issue I see with the "mandate plus passports" solution is that some people can't get vaccinated because of underlying health conditions. Thus we would need to introduce some kind of exemption process, which might be quite costly, complex, and slow, and which essentially requires people with severe health conditions to 'out' themselves to prevent being ostracised as anti-vax, or in order to access those services which now require a passport. It's another situation where a policy trades off protecting one vulnerable group by making another vulnerable group even worse off.
Yea this is a legitimate concern as well.
Also doubly costly when every anti-vaxx person tries their hardest to exempt themselves.
I don't think this is an effective solution -- I think it's been tried in some states with limited success. I do think there is a lot of space to explore within the passport model itself -- if you can minimize the impact on day-to-day life while still offering a strong incentive to get vaccinated you can avoid some of the issues you mention above. Requiring a passport for large events, flights, nightclubs etc might be enough. You can also make it temporary, where if we hit X% vaccinated in two years it gets lifted. If we accept that there is always going to be some level of free riders, the goal doesn't need to be for everyone to get jabbed, just enough of the population to reduce the threat of COVID.
https://archive.is/mzsBs