Friday, January 29, 2021

Employment Law Information: Under U.S. Federal Law, Can Your Employer Make You Get the COVID Vaccine?

Tracey Young. (Jan. 29, 2021). Employment Law Information: Under U.S. Federal Law, Can Your Employer Make You Get the COVID Vaccine? Canadian Advocacy Centre for Health, Safety and Justice. Retrieved from: https://canadianadvocacycentre.blogspot.com/2021/01/employment-law-information-under-us.html.

Introduction

Workers, employees and employers all over the world are facing decisions, pressures, and challenges around the issue of COVID vaccination at work. In the article below Greg Glaser and Mary Holland provide some employment law information under federal law in the United States. Their information provided is helpful for stakeholders in other countries to consider, and can be a jumping off point for learning more about these issues in our own jurisdictions. 

The most important elements I see being relevant to work-related COVID, or other vaccinations includes the following:

1. Voluntary with no coercion, duress, inducements (including bonuses, or pay to take vaccines), or pressure. 100% fully voluntary and health care decision-making rights, autonomy, and self-determination are respected by employers.

2. Full disclosure of contraindications, known, or suspected health conditions, or other factors that contribute to increased risk of Adverse Health events post-vaccination, including death.

3. Individual and class risk assessment of risks associated with COVID-19, or other infectious diseases, and the known risks and benefits of taking a COVID vaccine. 

4. Informed Consent to receive vaccines with full disclosure of risks, benefits, unknowns. 

5. Precautionary principle that weighs the need to take precautionary actions via COVID vaccination over the potential benefits, risks and costs of getting COVID-19 for that individual. 

6. If vaccines are still in experimental phases, like the Pfizer and Moderna, and other ones are, people must be fully informed about their civil rights under the Nuremberg Code

Article:

Under Federal Law, Can Your Employer Make You Get the COVID Vaccine?
States and employers, under federal law, can’t mandate emergency use products such as the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines. But that doesn’t mean some won’t try.

By Greg Glaser, Esq. and Mary Holland 1. (Jan. 29, 2021). The Defender. Retrieved from: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/under-federal-law-can-your-employer-make-you-get-covid-vaccine/.

Are state governments and private employers about to mandate COVID-19 vaccines?

There are many opaque current and future legal issues around COVID-19 and the measures to contain it. Fortunately, because the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are emergency use products, and as such, not fully licensed, the law is clear: States may not mandate the vaccines, and private entities do so at the peril of violating federal law.

The law governing vaccines approved for emergency use

For the time being, there are only two COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States: the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued them both Emergency Use Authorizations (EAU) but not yet full vaccine licenses.

New York State Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal recently proposed a bill to mandate COVID-19 vaccines, but she apparently neglected to consult federal law on emergency use authorization.

“Emergency Use Authorization” means that any product with this designation must be voluntary. Under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, “Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies”:

(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed —

     (I) that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] has authorized the emergency use of the product;

    (II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

    (III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

Under federal preemption doctrine, this federal EUA law trumps state law, meaning that states and municipalities may not mandate EUA products. As the FDA states:

“FDA believes that the terms and conditions of an EUA issued under section 564 preempt state or local law, both legislative requirements and common-law duties, that impose different or additional requirements on the medical product for which the EUA was issued in the context of the emergency declared under section 564 … 

In an emergency, it is critical that the conditions that are part of the EUA or an order or waiver issued pursuant to section 564A — those that FDA has determined to be necessary or appropriate to protect the public health—be strictly followed, and that no additional conditions be imposed.”

This was also confirmed in August 2020 at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where its Executive Secretary Dr, Amanda Cohn, stated (@1:14:40):

“I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandated.”

Governors may not mandate EUA vaccines, or EUA tests for COVID infection. States cannot override federal law or set up their own mandatory scheme. See for example, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 570-71 (2001), which overturned a state public health law because it was already the subject of a comprehensive federal scheme to manage public health, and Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530 (1988). For more information on state and local law, see this Emergency Use Authorization Toolkit from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

What about private employers?

A private party, such as an employer, school or hospital, cannot circumvent the EUA law. For example, this Fact Sheet approved last month by the FDA for the Pfizer vaccine states:

“It is your choice to receive or not receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.”

The previously referenced section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act governing medical products approved for emergency states that the FDA-approved fact sheet must state “the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product.”

Nowhere in the fact sheet does it specify that a person may be fired from their employment, denied education, disciplined or otherwise discriminated against for refusal.

With that said, the law on private entities is likely to be litigated. Even the most ardent advocates for COVID vaccines acknowledge that employer mandates would be “problematic” and would likely lead to litigation.

One of the initial issues in litigation would be that EUA law applies to “a person who carries out any activity for which the authorization is issued.” While this phrase plainly refers to healthcare workers, i.e. those who vaccinate the public, it can also refer to anyone who participates in the EUA activity, such as employers requiring the product (see e.g., reference below to private employers as “program planners”).

The FDA even applies the term to those that advertise the product. So courts are likely to find that EUA law covers employers carrying out their own vaccination requirements, as well as states and municipalities.

But what if a private employer stubbornly refuses to heed the EUA law and attempts to require its employees to get EUA vaccines anyway?

Employers are likely to lose if challenged in court for the above-stated reasons, and also because the FDA did not issue an Emergency Dispensing Order to even attempt to circumvent EUA requirements.

Indeed, the EUA law preventing mandates is so explicit that we found only one precedent case regarding an attempt to mandate an EUA vaccine, and the court held that the vaccine could not be mandated, even to people in the military. In Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5573 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2005).

In that case, six soldiers challenged the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), which at the time mandated EUA anthrax vaccines, often leading to what has been called Gulf War Syndrome. Six soldiers sued DOD to refuse vaccination and won. A federal court held that because the anthrax vaccine was an EUA product, the soldiers had the right to accept or refuse vaccination.

It’s a solid precedent showing that because a federal court upheld soldiers’ rights to decline EUA vaccines, it’s likely that courts would uphold employees’ rights to refuse EUA vaccines as well.

The FDA Fact Sheet for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine states:

“It is your choice to receive or not receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.” In other words, people cannot lose healthcare coverage for refusal.
But again, what if a private employer mandates EUA vaccines anyway? Official statements suggest that the employer might lose liability protection against damages from vaccine injury.

According to the Congressional Research Service, private businesses are subject to civil liability unless they “acted consistent with applicable directions, guidelines, or recommendations by the Secretary regarding the administration or use of a covered countermeasure” [and] “private businesses may qualify as ‘program planners’ (and thus covered persons) when performing certain functions).”

EUAs for past medical emergencies are instructive. In 2009, when the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared the H1N1 virus emergency, the FDA authorized the emergency use of the drug Peramivir IV. The fact sheet stated that the healthcare provider should communicate to the patient:

  1. The Secretary of HHS has authorized the emergency use of Peramivir IV, which is not an FDA approved drug.
  2. The patient has the option to accept or refuse Peramivir IV.
Video: Your Rights to Decline Mandatory Covid Measures. 
Constitutional Rights Centre. (Oct. 10, 2020). Youtube. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3wWxJ5L9Pk

Resources

Canada 

Vaccine Choice Canada

Link: https://vaccinechoicecanada.com

Presentations on the COVID Vaccines from VCC:

Coronavirus Vaccine – Is the Vaccine Safe and Effective? (download pptx PowerPoint file) Download PowerPoint as PDF – Presented by Ted Kuntz Sunday, January 24, 2021  – Southside Victory Church in Calgary – video to follow soon

Dr. Michael Palmer – The Dismal Science of COVID-19 Vaccines – video presentation
The Dismal Science of COVID-19 – video presentation
Notes on COVID – by Michael Palmer MD (pdf)

United States 

The Informed Consent Action Network’s legal team is offering to help individuals challenge employers or schools that are requiring COVID vaccinations. You can find more information here.

To download the Children’s Health Defense new e-book on vaccine mandates, go here.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

Copyright © 2021.Tracey Young/Canadian Advocacy Centre for Health, Safety & Justice. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Letter & Video: The Chinese Communist Party’s Global Lockdown Fraud: Request for expedited federal investigation into scientific fraud in COVID‑19 public health policies

 

Author: Tracey Young. (Jan.13, 2021). Letter: The Chinese Communist Party’s Global Lockdown Fraud: Request for expedited federal investigation into scientific fraud in COVID‑19 public health policies. Canadian Advocacy Centre for Health, Safety and Justice. Retrieved from: https://canadianadvocacycentre.blogspot.com/2021/01/letter-video-chinese-communist-partys.html.

Letter: The Chinese Communist Party’s Global Lockdown Fraud: Request for expedited federal investigation into scientific fraud in COVID‑19 public health policies

Source: https://ccpgloballockdownfraud.medium.com/the-chinese-communist-partys-global-lockdown-fraud-88e1a7286c2b

To:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20535

CC:

U.K. Security Service (MI5);
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation;
Canadian Security Intelligence Service;
Bundesnachrichtendienst;
U.S. Department of Justice

From:

Michael P. Senger, Attorney
Stacey A. Rudin, Attorney
Dr. Clare Craig, FRCPath
Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding
Randy Hillier, MPP Lanark, Frontenac & Kingston
Francis Hoar, Barrister at Law
Sanjeev Sabhlok, PhD
Brian O’Shea
Maajid Nawaz
Simon Dolan

This open letter is available for download in PDF format at Scribd. 

1. Lockdowns Originated on the Order of Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and Were Propagated Into Global Policy by the World Health Organization With Little Analysis or Logic.

2. The Most Influential Institution for Covid-19 Models, Self-Described as “China’s Best Academic Partner in the West,” Has Been by Far the Most Alarmist and Inaccurate Covid-19 Modeler.

3. Deadly Recommendations for Early Mechanical Ventilation Came from China.

4. The World’s Predominant, Wildly-Inaccurate PCR Testing Protocols Are Based on Incomplete, Theoretical Genome Sequences Supplied by China.

5. Predominant, Excessive PCR Testing Protocols Came from China.

6. Studies Showing Significant Asymptomatic Transmission, the Only Scientific Basis for Lockdowns of Healthy Individuals, Came from China.

7. The CCP Engaged in an Early, Broad, Systematic, and Global Propaganda Campaign to Promote Its Lockdown Response.

8. Many Prominent Pro-Lockdown Scientists Show Conspicuous Pro-China Bias.

9. Many Other Influential Lockdown Supporters Are Both Woefully Unqualified to Be Advising World Leaders on Pandemic Policy and Often Show Conspicuous Pro-China Bias.

10. Several Top National Health Officials Among the Nations Are Woefully Unqualified and Show Conspicuous Pro-China Bias.

11. Prominent Lockdown Supporters Have Proven Unusually Indifferent to the Devastating Consequences of Their Policies.


Video: Xi's World Trailer: Documentary-style video narration of the complaint. 

Full Documentary Narration Here: 

Source: The Very Opinionated Kate Wand Show. (Jan. 10, 2021). Xi's World. Youtube. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB1Gphvlsm8&feature=emb_logo

[Ed. Blogger will not allow me to embed the full video]. 

Copyright © 2020 - 2021.Tracey Young/Canadian Advocacy Centre for Health, Safety and Justice. All Rights Reserved.

Friday, January 8, 2021

Understanding Human Rights Laws for Businesses and Organizations: Avoiding Human Rights Complaints, Damages & Other Harm to Your Organization Related to Mask Mandates

 

Author: Tracey Young. (Jan. 8, 2021). Understanding Human Rights Laws for Businesses: Avoiding Human Rights Complaints, Damages and Other Harms Related to Mask MandatesCanadian Advocacy Centre for Health, Safety & Justice. Retrieved from: https://canadianadvocacycentre.blogspot.com/2021/01/understanding-human-rights-laws-for.html.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am a public interest advocate, social worker, writer, and publisher. I will provide an introduction to human rights legislation for businesses and organizations using British Columbia as an example. Please seek legal consultation with local business and employment lawyers to ensure your business and organization is acting in compliance with human rights, and other laws in your jurisdiction. 

Introduction

In this article I will discuss human rights legislation and information to help business owners across Canada understand their legal duties regarding human rights laws and their duty to accommodate individuals with mental and physical health disabilities with respect to mask orders, policies, and exemptions. I will use British Columbia's legislation and resources as an example to illustrate how this applies at the community, business, and organizational level. 

Many businesses, and organizations in Canada have been implementing masking mandates, while provinces have introduced masking orders under provincial legislation. If these policies, orders, or rules do not include exemptions for mental and physical health disabilities then they violate provincial and territorial human rights legislation. 

Businesses and organizations that fail to honour mask exemptions and provincial orders are engaging in unlawful conduct. This leaves them at risk and vulnerable to legal action in the form of human rights complaints through human rights tribunals, or commissions in the respective province. This conduct could also leave organizations open to other forms of complaints, such as licensing inspections, and other investigations. 

Business owners and their employees must ensure the human rights of customers, or visitors are respected. Failure to act in compliance with human rights laws can lead to expensive, time intensive, and damaging human rights cases against business owners, and their employees. 

What Organizations Do Human Rights Laws Apply To?

It is important to understand what laws apply to different organizations in Canada. 

Provincial and territorial human rights laws apply to private businesses, and organizations; governmental and public sector bodies; not-for-profit, community-based; and non-governmental organizations (NGO's).  

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ONLY applies to public sector, municipal, provincial and federal governmental organizations. For example, city, provincial/territorial and federal governmental ministries; health authorities providing community-based care, hospitals, and residential care homes; provincial car insurance organizations; Crown corporations; and workers compensation boards. 


Protected grounds of discrimination

The Canadian Human Rights Act (1985) describes several Prohibited grounds of discrimination under sec. 3:
  •  (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Note: This federal Act only applies to federal government organizations. However, the protected grounds found in the legislation of each province and territory in Canada are similar to those found in this legislation. 

Find Human Rights Legislation and Organizations Where Complaints Are Filed in Your Province/Territory

No Discrimination

All private businesses, and organizations (B/O) in Canada are required to be compliant with the human rights legislation in their province, or territory (or the federal Act). These B/O's must not discriminate, or refuse service, or access on the protected grounds covered under the law. 

Most human rights legislation in each province also has sections related to signage to ensure that signs, posters, and other things that are displayed at a business, or organization are not discriminating against people who have protected status. 

Duty to Accommodate

All B/O's are required under human rights laws to accommodate individuals with mental or physical health conditions, or disabilities. Refusal to do so may be legally actionable by the person who was discriminated against, and/or they can take action on behalf of someone they are the legal guardian of if they were discriminated against. This means these individuals may be able to file a human rights complaint against that business, or organization. 

Human rights complaints are costly, time intensive, and can cause various harms and damages to businesses and organizations. Businesses and organizations will most likely have to pay lawyers to represent them, incurring legal expenses and costs. Defending yourself and your organization in a human rights complaint takes a lot of time, energy, and effort. The actions involved in these complaints includes: 

■ Learning about the human rights process and paperwork;

■ Locating and meeting with legal counsel once a retainer is provided;

■ Preparing to defend your legal case and the complaint laid against your business/organization, and filing the required legal forms and paperwork;

■ Strictly adhering to legal timelines, procedures, and processes. 

These cases can cause reputational damage to B/O's because written decisions are available to the public. The names of business owners and employees who may have engaged in disreputable and harmful ways will be publicly reported in decisions. Harmful, unfavourable local gossip, and word of mouth about a business could also come into play, creating a legacy that is harmful to the business. 

If the B/O loses the human rights case they will most likely be ordered to pay damages in the form of compensation to the person whose human rights were violated. These are often called, "Injury to Dignity" awards

B/O's can avoid all of these things by familiarizing themselves, and training their employees in human rights legislation and duty to accommodate requirements.


Knowing Your Legal Duties and Obligations Under Human Rights Legislation

It is the legal obligation of every business owner, manager, and/or organization to have a strong understanding of ALL legislation that applies to your business, and organization in your jursidiction. This includes the following: 

1. Health and safety licensing regulations, guidelines, policies and requirements from local health authorities, municipal and provincial/territorial levels of government for your industry.

2. Workplace health and safety legislation, regulations, and policies from your provincial/territorial workers compensation board. 

3. Human rights legislation and how to operate your business/organization in full compliance with the legislation and regulations in your province/territory for both employees and the public. 

4. Employment standards legislation, regulations, and policies and to operate in compliance with these regarding how to manage and treat your employees.  

Video: Duties & Rights of Business Owners on Masking under Covid

In this video, Rocco Galati, a constitutional rights lawyer, discusses the legal duties and obligations business owners have regarding handling masking mandates and orders. 

Rocco Galati: Duties & Rights of Business Owners on Masking under Covid.
(Oct. 13, 2020). Constitutional Rights Centre. Youtube. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0knrnCBurQ8.


Commonalities of Human Rights Legislation in Canada

There are many key commonalities enshrined in the different human rights laws in Canada. These include: 

Outlining "protected grounds": This includes things such as gender, race, mental and physical disabilities. 

Equality rights: Ensuring that all people in your jurisdiction are treated with equality, dignity, inclusion and the ability to participate fully in society. 

Prohibiting discrimination: This includes not treating people differently for protected grounds. This denies people equality, dignity, and the ability to be included and participate in society. 

Legal duty to Accommodate: Legal requirements and duty to accommodate people who are claiming a protected ground in order to access a service, or business. 

Undue hardship: If an organization is claiming it cannot accommodate an protected individual, or group, the legal duty falls on the organization to provide evidence of why it would be "undue hardship" and why they cannot accommodate the person who reports a protected status. 

Individual case: When an individual who has a protected status makes a complaint of discrimination against an organization. 

Representative, or systemic case: When an individual makes both an individual human rights complaint, but also makes a complaint based on a whole protected group, or class, being systematically discriminated against. 

Prima Facie Case of Discrimination

Upon filing a human rights case, an individual must provide the following:

■ A substantive explanation and report about how your organization discriminated against them. 

■ The protected status that the discrimination occurred under in the applicable legislation. 

■ A detailed account of the situation, including the names of participants and witnesses who were involved in the discrimination they are alleging took place. 

The Supreme Court of Canada has described the prima facie test as follows:

The complainant in proceedings before human rights tribunals must show a prima facie case of discrimination. prima facie case in this context is one which covers the allegations made and which, if they are believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in the complainant’s favour in the absence of an answer from the respondent–employer.

Source: Ontario Human Rights Commission. Glossary of concepts in human rights. Retrieved from: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/human-rights-and-family-ontario/glossary-concepts-human-rights.

Using B.C. Human Rights Legislation As an Example

I will use B.C.'s legislation to provide an example of how these matters are articulated under the law. 

BC Human Rights Code

Definitions

1 "discrimination" includes the conduct described in sections 7, 8 (1) (a), (9) (a) and (b), 10 (1) (a), 11, 13 (1) (a) and (2), 14 (a) and (b), 43 and 47.21;

Discrimination and intent

2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

Purposes

3 The purposes of this Code are as follows:


(a) to foster a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia;


(b) to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights;


(c) to prevent discrimination prohibited by this Code;


(d) to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this Code;


(e) to provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to this Code.

Discriminatory publication

7 (1)A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that


(a)indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or


(b)is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.

Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility

8 (1)A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

(a)deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or


(b)discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons.


Find The Human Rights Legislation and Organization in Your Province/Territory

1. Visit this Link to find a list of all of Civil & Human Rights Laws, Commissions and Tribunals in Canada

2. Search 🠞 Province/territory Human Rights Law 

Video: The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: An Introduction. 
Mike Baab. (January 14, 2015). Youtube. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCoL6JVZHrA.


Mask Exemption Resources for Human Rights Compliance

BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner’s poster aims to reduce misunderstandings about the application of the order to people who are unable to wear masks. The poster encourages duty bearers such as business owners to take people at their word if they claim a mask exemption.


“As we adopt more extensive mask-wearing protocols, it is important to ensure that the implementation of the mask-wearing mandate does not violate people’s human rights, particularly the rights of people with disabilities,” said Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender.

The poster advises business owners that:

  •  If a person claims a mask exemption, take them at their word. Proof should not be required.

  • Business owners cannot be fined for allowing people without masks to enter their place of business.



Advice for Businesses and Organizations Regarding Mask Policies and Orders

➤ Take into account the protected grounds covered under your province/territory's human rights legislation. 

Ensure that exemptions and accommodations are clearly articulated within your policies. For example, you may need to state that your policy does not apply —or applies differently—to people with a medical condition, such as a severe respiratory issue, or a disability that inhibits their ability to wear a mask, such as being unable to place or remove a mask without assistance. 

➤ If someone states they have a health exemption as the reason they are not wearing a mask the individual is exercising their human rights. Your business and employees have a legal duty to accommodate their needs. 

Businesses and organizations are not legally entitled to ask to see "proof" or "evidence" to justify a health, or medical exemption. Asking for this is a violation of  individuals' rights to privacy of their personal information under the applicable privacy legislation in your province. 

An inability to use a mask or an inability to follow a health and safety procedure must not lead to automatic negative consequences such as employee discipline or termination, denial of service or eviction from housing. 

Requiring individuals who do not wear masks due to health exemptions to submit to additional "screening measures," such as answering health questions, or submitting to temperature screening, also violates human rights legislation under equality provisions. This may also violate other provincial legislation. 

➤ Educate and train your employees about mask exemptions, human rights laws, and the requirements to follow them, and why this is important. 

Conclusion

Civil and human rights legislation aims to "level the playing field" for individuals who may be at higher risk of being discriminated against in Canadian society. There is a great deal of research that shows that people with disabilities, both visible and invisible ones, face direct and indirect discrimination that impacts their dignity and ability to be fully included and participate in their communities. Many of us take these things for granted. 

At any point in any of our lives, we, or someone we love, could experience a temporary, or permanent change in our health, including a disability, that may impact the way we participate in the world, and how we experience quality of life. 

Canada benefits, as a whole, when we treat all members of our society with compassion, dignity, equality, and respect and the same rights as others to fully be included and participate in all aspects of community life.

Copyright © 2021.Tracey Young/Canadian Advocacy Centre for Health, Safety and Justice. All Rights Reserved.

_________________________________________________________

#Canada #disabilities #masks #maskorders #healthexemptions #business #Canadian #humanrights #civilrights #equalityrights #dignity 

Canada: COVID-19 Cases and Adverse Health Reaction Statistics for COVID-19 Vaccines to October 7, 2023

  COVID-19 Cases in Canada to October 4, 2023 ▶️  Dec. 14, 2020: 460,743 COVID-19 Cases in Canada ▶️  Vaccines started being administered i...