It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Human and Civil Rights versus Forced Vaccination in the US and Canada

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Is Mandatory Vaccination legal according to our respective Constitutions/Bill of Rights?

In the States it seems pretty cut and dried.

In the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the US Supreme Court upheld the states’ authority to mandate vaccinations (in this case, for smallpox) for this very reason. The court noted in its opinion:

Link

“The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.”

“Because one person’s choice affects the health of other people and the public at large, people do not have a fundamental right to refuse vaccination,” Hall concludes.


And:

Link

On February 20, 1905, the Supreme Court rejected Jacobson’s arguments. Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote about the police power of states to regulate for the protection of public health: “The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts,” Harlan said “upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”


-------

In Canada it isn't so cut and dried, but ends in the same result.

Link

Q:Can the government restrict certain activities or access to places only to people who have been vaccinated?

A: Yes, the government has this power under the Public Health Act and can choose to exercise it. One of the purposes of using the power is to protect those who are not yet immune from the virus.
But the only way an employer can force someone to receive the vaccine is to show the vaccine is a “bona fide occupational requirement.”

This test, based on the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, already exists in labour law.


So to make it mandatory they have to show that it's an "occupational requirement". Which leaves it open for interpretation, unfortunately.

But, they have to make exemptions and exceptions according to our Rights relating to religion and conscience:

Link

Fundamental freedoms

2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.


-------

Other than religious, medical, or conscience exemptions, it looks like they CAN mandate vaccines according to our respective Laws.

So, from what I can gather, it doesn't look good for those of us who don't want the C-Jab.

I'm fundamentally opposed to forced vaccination, but, it IS coming on a GLOBAL basis, we might as well accept that fact now and get ready to fight it.

This is about CONTROL. This is about a Universal ID. The "plandemic" is just their excuse to usher in what some may call the "Beast System", others, the NWO. Either way, we're witnessing a change like we've never seen before.

Fight it, protest it, write your politicians, put up a sign in your yard.

Buck the system.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Is Mandatory Vaccination legal according to our respective Constitutions/Bill of Rights?


Are you talking about a government mandate or a private company mandate? The former is not possible without offering exemptions, the latter revolves around reasonable accommodations tempered by right to work.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Is there much of a difference between mandate and the use of force in this context, or is it just semantics.

A mandate could imply something that is required to be able to have the right to do certain things. While the use of force is a much more violent act in which something is done, administered in this case, to someone who flatly rejects it. Is it important we understand which of these scenarios governments will consider?

I struggle to see a nation going door to door, or having roving squads hunting down individuals and administering a vaccine. This would most obviously backfire. A mandate however may be more effective, where certain privileges are withheld.
edit on 30-8-2021 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MykeNukem

The case you mentioned in America I believe was also referenced in a case for forced sterilization, the very arguments used to justify forcing, it is absolutely terrifying to realize just how powerful the Eugenicists have always been.

Would the Nuremberg code have overrode that case and we have simply never seen it challenged?

One thing is for sure, we have learned the kind of universal character that it takes to lead to these crimes against humanity...




edit on America/ChicagoMondayAmerica/Chicago08America/Chicago831amMonday10 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Is Mandatory Vaccination legal according to our respective Constitutions/Bill of Rights?


Are you talking about a government mandate or a private company mandate? The former is not possible without offering exemptions, the latter revolves around reasonable accommodations tempered by right to work.



What is your position on forced vaccinations to US citizens?



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: MykeNukem

Here is another effect Jacobson v. Massachusetts had:


Jacobson was cited as support for the general principle that public welfare was sufficient to justify involuntary sterilization. The decision extended the police power’s reach from imposing a monetary penalty for refusing vaccination to forcing surgery on a young woman against her will and depriving her of the ability to have children. The Court did not require the state to demonstrate that sterilization was necessary and not arbitrary or oppressive. This suggests that the Court did not view Jacobson as having required any substantive standard of necessity or reasonableness that would prevent what today would be considered an indefensible assault. The Court did not even consider that Carrie Buck might have any right to personal liberty. With the Court’s imprimatur of involuntary sterilization laws, more than 60 000 Americans, mostly poor women, were sterilized by 1978.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So it allows for all sorts of fun things including involuntary sterilization if you are deemed an undesirable.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Is Mandatory Vaccination legal according to our respective Constitutions/Bill of Rights?


Are you talking about a government mandate or a private company mandate? The former is not possible without offering exemptions, the latter revolves around reasonable accommodations tempered by right to work.



I'm talking government mandate.

I addressed exemptions, but in practice we are seeing that they aren't really providing or even mentioning them in a lot of circumstances.

What if you just decide you don't want the C-Jab? Is there an exemption for that (in practice)? By the law yes, but the authorities are making it hard for someone to exercise that Right.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: MDDoxs
Is there much of a difference between mandate and the use of force in this context, or is it just semantics.

A mandate could imply something that is required to be able to have the right to do certain things. While the use of force is a much more violent act in which something is done, administered in this case, to someone who flatly rejects it. Is it important we understand which of these scenarios governments will consider?

I struggle to see a nation going door to door, or having roving squads hunting down individuals and administering a vaccine. This would most obviously backfire. A mandate however may be more effective, where certain privileges are withheld.


Well, according to our laws, a judge could mandate that you be taken and given a shot by force.

In fact they have.
edit on 8/30/2021 by MykeNukem because: sp.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
What is your position on forced vaccinations to US citizens?


I'm not for forced anything by the government.





edit on 30-8-2021 by AugustusMasonicus because: Cooking spirits since 2007



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chalcedony
a reply to: MykeNukem

Here is another effect Jacobson v. Massachusetts had:


Jacobson was cited as support for the general principle that public welfare was sufficient to justify involuntary sterilization. The decision extended the police power’s reach from imposing a monetary penalty for refusing vaccination to forcing surgery on a young woman against her will and depriving her of the ability to have children. The Court did not require the state to demonstrate that sterilization was necessary and not arbitrary or oppressive. This suggests that the Court did not view Jacobson as having required any substantive standard of necessity or reasonableness that would prevent what today would be considered an indefensible assault. The Court did not even consider that Carrie Buck might have any right to personal liberty. With the Court’s imprimatur of involuntary sterilization laws, more than 60 000 Americans, mostly poor women, were sterilized by 1978.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So it allows for all sorts of fun things including involuntary sterilization if you are deemed an undesirable.


Thank you!!

This is precisely what I was referencing.

All of this has been tied to the Eugenicists of the time, the same corrupt network we see now, just on a multinational level of corruption that boggles the mind.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: MykeNukem
I'm talking government mandate.


There are already plenty of exemptions, it's much harder for the government to force you into this and I'm not seeing examples of the US government not adhering to them.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chalcedony
a reply to: MykeNukem

Here is another effect Jacobson v. Massachusetts had:


Jacobson was cited as support for the general principle that public welfare was sufficient to justify involuntary sterilization. The decision extended the police power’s reach from imposing a monetary penalty for refusing vaccination to forcing surgery on a young woman against her will and depriving her of the ability to have children. The Court did not require the state to demonstrate that sterilization was necessary and not arbitrary or oppressive. This suggests that the Court did not view Jacobson as having required any substantive standard of necessity or reasonableness that would prevent what today would be considered an indefensible assault. The Court did not even consider that Carrie Buck might have any right to personal liberty. With the Court’s imprimatur of involuntary sterilization laws, more than 60 000 Americans, mostly poor women, were sterilized by 1978.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So it allows for all sorts of fun things including involuntary sterilization if you are deemed an undesirable.


Sounds a lot like what the Nazis did.

Scary AF that they think this is ok.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: MykeNukem

Is there any limitation? That seems like quite a power for the judiciary system to wield. Is it not tempered by a relation to a legal infraction? i.e., you break a law and then you are mandated to some outcome?

In this scenario, requiring vaccination would have to be made a legal requirement and a new law written. New laws go through quite a process.

What about infringing on other laws and rights? Surely this must push against forcing anyone to do anything.
edit on 30-8-2021 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:30 AM
link   
From your link.


Treatment or punishment

12 Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.


This seems to cover it to my mind.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MykeNukem
I'm talking government mandate.


There are already plenty of exemptions, it's much harder for the government to force you into this and I'm not seeing examples of the US government not adhering to them.





NYC?

Link

The city hasn’t immediately said what the penalty will be for refusing, or whether there will be exemptions. The previous vaccinate-or-test requirement had provisions for unpaid suspensions for workers who didn’t comply.


Doesn't sound like they are too forthcoming with the exception and exemption information. In fact, it sounds like they're trying to make the public think that there isn't any, unless the authorities decide there is.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: MykeNukem

We've heard our own president say that no right is absolute.

Our rights have become privileges based upon preset conditions determined by government.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MykeNukem

We've heard our own president say that no right is absolute.

Our rights have become privileges based upon preset conditions determined by government.


Yup exactly.

Scares the # out of me that people don't see it.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The US Supreme Court has been wrong in their interpretations many times. Their twisted interpretation of the 14th amendment, allowing corporations to gain the rights of people, is one glaring example, where they not only got it wrong, but warped and twisted their interpretation of the constitution for the benefit of handful of individuals.

They were wrong about forced medical treatments in 1905 and even if they ruled the state had the right to force vaccinate today, they would still be wrong. I don't know why everyone trusts them anyway. The whole of the US government is corrupt and so is the Supreme Court as well.

In the end it doesn't matter anyway, because the constitution is a document for the restriction of the government, not to establish the rights of the people. Those rights are inalienable and arise from just being. The government will take any right they want, as long as the people allow them to and can not take any right that they won't.

And they don't have the right to force medical treatments on us, even for the "greater good"; which is the creed of all tyrants and dictators. None of them ever say they just want to take rights, they always say they have to for the greater good.
edit on 30-8-2021 by themessengernevermatters because: restructuring



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MykeNukem

We've heard our own president say that no right is absolute.

Our rights have become privileges based upon preset conditions determined by government.


This comes down to your right and not infringing on others rights. This has always been a challenging topic.

If someone has a highly contagious and dangerous disease, lets say an aggressive form of ebola, do you still have the right to go into public and potentially spread the disease?



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MykeNukem

They can make it sound like whatever they want, the exemptions exist and are available to everyone.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join