Canadian Vaccine Laws
CategoriesLike so many illegal things masquerading as legal, courtesy of vested interests, thought one should keep the following in mind when dealing with Draconian know it all authorities...
...""Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution... legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization."
(This applies to everyone - the Constitution is there to prevent special interest groups from over-running individual rights based on their own arbitrary agendas.)
...There is no compensation, by anyone, for anyone injured from the vaccine.
...If someone (e.g. employer or health ministry) decides to take away another's freedom of choice, THEY should be the ones burdened with the responsibility of defending this - the burden should not be placed on workers to prove they are deserving of a right that the law already guarantees. The union should staunchly protect their rights - particularly since we are talking about a right engrained in The Constitution."
See also: Re: Canadian Vaccine Laws
Chris Gupta
Here is the attachment about the laws and regulations on our constitution about vaccines. This is written by Catherine J.M. Diodati, M.A.
Andrea
--------------------------------------------------
In the end, though, there are no laws mandating vaccination for anyone. The Canadian Constitution prohibits vaccine mandates. What some employers have neglected to understand is that the Constitution has been put in place to protect individuals from special interest groups who would try to deny our rights.If she is still in school, of course the exemption would be valid. There is no other situation where there has been any legislation even requiring an exemption.
I prepared a list of arguments for someone a few weeks ago who was making a presentation to their union. I think that the points I listed would be helpful. Some of the info is directly related to the flu vaccine and health care workers, so I think it would all be helpful to her (particularly since the flu vaccine would be the most likely one suggested). I'll include these points below.
Feel free to contact me with any questions.
All the best,
Catherine
------------------------------------------------
Some points that may be helpful:- The Health Care Consent Act Section 11 (1) #1 states that "The Consent [to treatment] must be given voluntarily."
- Enforced medical treatment is an assault and suspending employees who refuse to undergo medical treatment violates their security of the person's interests. (This is part of the Charney Decision, re: St. Peter's Health System members, Feb 7, 2002 and refers to The Constitution Act, 1982, Section 7).
- "Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution... legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization."
Quoted from: Health Canada, "Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996." Canada Communicable Disease Report - Supplement Vol. 23S4 May 1997
(This applies to everyone - the Constitution is there to prevent special interest groups from over-running individual rights based on their own arbitrary agendas.)
- There is no legislation authorizing anyone to mandate influenza vaccination (or any other vaccine) as a condition of work.
- Making vaccination a condition of work (whether suspension is temporary or permanent) is a mandate and is coercive in that the individual is put into the position of accepting a medical intervention they do not want or need or to face potential impoverishment. This is indeed taking away free choice.
- There is no compensation, by anyone, for anyone injured from the vaccine.
- Suspending healthy workers, due to an arbitrary ruling, will unnecessarily overburden facilities.
- Vaccinated workers can still contract influenza. Clinical influenza (according to a meta-analysis by Italian Epidemiologist Vittorio Demichelli et al, Vaccine 2000) found that the vaccine may prevent clinical influenza in only 24% of vaccinees but 69% of vaccinees will experience local reactions and 26% will experience systemic effects (flu symptoms) - from the vaccine. In a Canadian study, local reactions occurred in 86% and systemic effects were found to occur in 49%. (David W. Scheifele et al., "Evaluation of Adverse Events after Influenza Vaccination on Hospital Personnel," Canadian Medical Association Journal 142 no.2 (1990): 127-130.)
- There are NO studies (just see any that Health Canada uses to support Health Care Worker (HCW) vaccination) that PROVE that HCWs are the source of nosocomial (originating or taking place in a hospital) influenza infections. Also - there are no methodologically sound studies that demonstrate that vaccination of HCWs is an effective means of preventing flu in patients or reducing HCW sick time.
- Vaccination is not required for visitors and delivery persons entering the facilities. While the employees at the facility have more direct contact with patients, this also presents a higher stake (a greater personal and professional reason) for them to protect their patients by staying home while ill with ANY communicable disease.
- According to the LCDC's (Laboratory Centre for Disease Control (Ottawa, Canada)) yearly influenza strain characterization analyses, only about 10%-13% of URIs (upper respiratory inf believed by MDs to be influenza actually turn out to be influenza. The other URIs are from various other pathogens such as coronavirus, rhinovirus, adenovirus, and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) which cause the same symptoms and complications as influenza and arise at the same time as influenza season. The flu vaccine does not address ANY of these other pathogens.
- If the union allows this sort of coercion to be established, it will set a precedent for any other interventions that come down the pipeline. (e.g. bio warfare vaccines, "preventive drugs", smallpox vaccines, etc.)
- The only time forced medical treatment has been legally allowed is when an already infected person refuses treatment for a communicable disease and presents a real risk to society.
- If someone (e.g. employer or health ministry) decides to take away another's freedom of choice, THEY should be the ones burdened with the responsibility of defending this - the burden should not be placed on workers to prove they are deserving of a right that the law already guarantees. The union should staunchly protect their rights - particularly since we are talking about a right engrained in The Constitution.
see also:
VaccinesUPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict
posted by Chris Gupta on Saturday November 29 2003
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/11/29/canadian_vaccine_laws.htm
Related ArticlesAutism-Mercury Defence Restored by Nutritional Interventions
Thanks Adeha, you are absolutely right about the "inherited weakness" allegation. It never seizes to amaze me how the so called experts parrot this rubbish so blindly. They can't see that a weakness is often offset with a strength for a given environmental/demographical situation. Piecemeal genetic solutions are hardly ever the solution as they can often cause other problem (weakness/'s) that are not easy to determine or even test... However,... [read more]
January 04, 2005 - Chris GuptaTIME TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINATIONS
The petition letter at www.autismtruth.org/ itself is an education. Please read and foreword as appropriate. Chris Gupta E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNITED WAY/COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN #9119 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *... [read more]
November 23, 2004 - Chris GuptaCourt Rules-No Forced Anthrax Vaccination
Finally, a judge rules with some integrity and ethics! CB ----- Original Message ----- From: NVICNews To: news@nvic.org Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 9:34 AM Subject: [NVIC] Court Rules-No Forced Anthrax Vaccination E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org "Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982." ===================== BL Fisher Note: After reviewing all the evidence, ths U.S. District Court judge concluded that "Congress... [read more]
October 29, 2004 - Chris Gupta
