News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 870     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 1.2K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 599     0 

44th Canadian Federal Election

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Think of it as a war (and just compare the numbers of Canadian deaths in WWII to COVID, it's on the same order of magnitude) - sometimes sacrifices in personal liberties are needed; and frankly the sacrifices asked of us pales in comparison to what was asked of citizens in the Second World War.

AoD
Click to expand...
No offence but that's an incredibly flawed comparison. The sacrifices made during the war were so that liberties would prevail, and they did. Which is why I'll circle back to my point about this being finite or not. I'm fine with war time measures (it's why I was ok with lockdowns) but when the war is over you get back those freedoms you gave up. There's no guarantee of that here.
 
Bjays92 said:
No offence but that's an incredibly flawed comparison. The sacrifices made during the war were so that liberties would prevail, and they did. Which is why I'll circle back to my point about this being finite or not. I'm fine with war time measures (it's why I was ok with lockdowns) but when the war is over you get back those freedoms you gave up. There's no guarantee of that here.
Click to expand...

And the sacrifices made during this war is so that the health and well-being of the Canadian population would prevail - certainly that is no less important than liberty (I mean, POGG and all that). There is no guarantee, other than through the trust of democratic norms and institutions that wartime restrictions in the Second World War would be removed when the war is over - and it is arguable that we have even stronger safeguards now with the Charter of Rights. To imply that the war is "over" now is like someone claiming we can do whatever after the Normandy landings because we had enough and don't know whether the restrictions are finite. I mean, geez, why would the government want to restrict travel indefinitely? Or requiring proof of vaccination for travel indefinitely? Because it does wonders for the economy? Because it has nothing better to do? No - because they have a responsiblity to safeguard lives against a disease that still have the capacity to do great harm to our society - and frankly requiring vaccination against this virus is one of the safest, least intrusive restrictions relative to the alternatives.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
And the sacrifices made during this war is so that the health and well-being of the Canadian population would prevail - certainly that is no less important than liberty (I mean, POGG and all that). There is no guarantee, other than through the trust of democratic norms and institutions that wartime restrictions in the Second World War would be removed when the war is over - and it is arguable that we have even stronger safeguards now with the Charter of Rights. To imply that the war is "over" now is like someone claiming we can do whatever we want after landed on Normandy because we had enough and don't know whether the restrictions are finite.

AoD
Click to expand...
I was never trying to imply the "war" was over. I said that when the war is over you should get your freedom back. They key being when, because eventually this will be over. I'll admit I do not have a lot of trust in Trudeau's government to respect individual rights. Their recent hate speech legislation, as well bill C-10 make me very wary of this government. Why do we need government appointed tribunals to hear hate speech cases when we already have the courts who do this, and interpret the law appropriately and in limited scope, for example.
 
Bjays92 said:
I was never trying to imply the "war" was over. I said that when the war is over you should get your freedom back. They key being when, because eventually this will be over. I'll admit I do not have a lot of trust in Trudeau's government to respect individual rights. Their recent hate speech legislation, as well bill C-10 make me very wary of this government. Why do we need government appointed tribunals to hear hate speech cases when we already have the courts who do this, and interpret the law appropriately and in limited scope, for example.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with hate speech? You are conflating one thing with another and anchoring it on "trust issues". (and if you want intrusions into "individual rights" - you should look at the legislations - like Bill C-51 - under Harper, as justifiable as the ends might be). Also, don't forget the majority of our politics is not federal - it is provincial. You cannot grossly individual rights without triggering Charter challenges or push back from the provinces.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
What does this have to do with hate speech? You are conflating one thing with another and anchoring it on "trust issues". Also, don't forget the majority of our politics is not federal - it is provincial.

AoD
Click to expand...
I think your seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not against vaccine requirements, nor am trying to diminish the value of public safety. (I'd just like to have some assurance the requirements are finite)

I was simply expressing that I am in agreement on this particular issue with what the conservatives said, that doesnt even mean my stance is correct but my experience living in and having to leave an authoritarian country has created a concern however rational or irrational that is shaping my perspective on this issue.

You mentioned how we have charter rights, which we absolutely do, but I thought it was relevant since you mentioned it, to point out how I personally feel this current government does not care much for said rights and gave examples of such. While vaccines and hate speech are not the same, it is a fair question to say, if the liberals are willing to undermine rights on this issue, why wouldn't they elsewhere.

I was also making the assumption that the root of this entire discussion was the newly announced federal vaccine requirement, which is obviously a federal issue and not a provincial one. I am well aware that the majority of the policy that directly affects our lives is provincial and not federal
 
Bjays92 said:
I think your seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not against vaccine requirements, nor am trying to diminish the value of public safety.

I was simply expressing that I am in agreement on this particular issue with what the conservatives said, that doesnt even mean my stance is correct but my experience living in and having to leave an authoritarian country has created a concern however rational or irrational that is shaping my perspective on this issue.

You mentioned how we have charter rights, which we absolutely do, but I thought it was relevant since you mentioned it, to point out how I personally feel this current government does not care much for said rights and gave examples of such. While vaccines and hate speech are not the same, it is a fair question to say, if the liberals are willing to undermine rights on this issue, why wouldn't they elsewhere.

I was also making the assumption that the root of this entire discussion was the newly announced federal vaccine requirement, which is obviously a federal issue and not a provincial one. I am well aware that the majority of the policy that directly affects our lives is provincial and not federal
Click to expand...

You are expressing fear that somehow these restrictions will be made permanent and be used in nefarious ways by the government. But to what end? This is like the least useful way for the government to intrude into individual rights. In the meantime, as I have pointed out to you anti-terrorism legislation actually have far greater potential to inflict damage on individual rights, through arms of the state that are actually empowered to do so (for legitimate reasons) - surely as someone from an authoritarian country you should be more concerned about that than some measly public health related orders during a pandemic.

And the government is not above the law - it can't just "ignore" rulings around Charter rights if they get dragged to the courts and lost (you can use the nuclear option for some - but that requires going to the legislature to invoke the Notwithstanding clause - and none had done so federally).

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
You are expressing fear that somehow these restrictions will be made permanent and be used in nefarious ways by the government. But to what end? This is like the least useful way for the government to intrude into individual rights. In the meantime, as I have pointed out to you anti-terrorism legislation actually have far greater potential to inflict damage on individual rights, through arms of the state that are actually empowered to do so (for legitimate reasons) - surely as someone from an authoritarian country you should be more concerned about that than some measly public health related orders during a pandemic.

And the government is not above the law - it can't just "ignore" rulings around Charter rights (you can use the nuclear option for some - but none had done so federally).

AoD
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I almost mentioned counter terrorism laws. They absolutely give me a level of concern despite understanding the reason for their existence. My concern is not within vaccine requirements in of themselves but rather the precident of restricting individuals access to general services. I do highly doubt that vaccine passports could be used in a malicious way, but that does not prevent me from being wary and I was merely expressing that.
 
Bjays92 said:
Absolutely, I almost mentioned counter terrorism laws. They absolutely give me a level of concern despite understanding the reason for their existence. My concern is not within vaccine requirements in of themselves but rather the precident of restricting individuals access to general services. I do highly doubt that vaccine passports could be used in a malicious way, but that does not prevent me from being wary and I was merely expressing that.
Click to expand...

If anything this government had been too chicken about violating rights (just look at Australia, another common-law country). Also getting on flights and trains and whatnot requires someone to follow the rules of that mode of transportation - and it includes implicit and explicit rules against behaviour and actions that will put others at risk. In other words the old adage - your freedom ends where my nose begins.

ApD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
If anything this government had been too chicken. Also getting on flights and trains and whatnot requires someone to follow the rules of that mode of transportation - and it includes implicit and explicit rules against behaviour and actions that will put others at risk.

ApD
Click to expand...
Again I'm not in disagreement. I've been absolutely baffled that air travel, possibly the most high risk activity possible, has been able to remain open, while single family vehicles cannot cross the border. I've found it flabbergasting. Vaccines for air travel are a no brainer.

Understanding a situation, does not alleviate my reservations which again I was merely expressing. I of course hope this will never become a real issue, but I have lost most of my faith in any and all governments at this point which I suppose is ultimately the root of my concerns.
 
Richard White said:
It's on like Donkey Kong.

So... what is the game plan if Ontario hits 4000 cases a day or more on or before election day?
Click to expand...

They're going to push through somehow, and probably we'll have a lot of advance voting opportunities around.
 
Since the Canadian federal government requires all civil servants to be fully vaccinated, I'm assuming that includes poll workers. Better have your vaccination receipts when you apply. At the moment, its...

It is a condition of employment that poll workers consent to disclosing to their returning officer if they experience symptoms of or test positive for COVID-19.
Click to expand...
From link. But subject to change.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top