"The events of the last year have made the culture shift undeniable. Group rights are in. Individual rights are out." theepochtimes.com/covid-response…
"It is remarkable that the notion of voluntary, informed consent—the hallmark of medical treatment in a civilized society—is now seen as an unreasonable and selfish obstacle to unquestionable goals.
"Like virtually all of our Covid responses, mandatory, universal vaccination is unmoored from past practices, plans, evidence, & rationality. It has taken on a moral urgency, fuelled by a collective fear that instinctively steamrolls over individual rights, desires, & interests.
"Here is a better way: once the vulnerable have been given the opportunity to be vaccinated, thereby no longer facing a meaningful risk of severe illness, then all restrictions on citizens’ lives should be lifted immediately. No mandatory vaccines. No passports."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ The Ford gov't was supposed to return to the legislature this week if it wanted to continue the 2nd "state of emergency", which the cabinet could only keep in place for 28 days (now finished).
Our elected legislature would have had a chance to debate, consider & vote.
2/ Instead, just like they did in July with the "Reopening Ontario Act" (doublespeak much?), the gov't is managing to avoid the legislature (although it did pass the Act), keep the emergency orders in effect & continue to concentrate power in the cabinet (particularly, the CMOH).
3/ This is bad for democracy, for the constitution & for civil liberties. Other Western democracies are facing similar threats, with little concern for the preservation of important norms that undergird or way of life in a free society. Good article below about the UK experience.
The compelled speech angle wasn't fully explored in Shahdin's op-ed, which I understand was abbreviated to fit space constraints @CanLawMag, but the directive requires ALL lawyers to state their own pronouns, not just extend a courtesy to those who may prefer something different.
Most lawyers are respectful toward individuals who identify themselves differently. But the main point of contention is that this goes beyond courtesy into enforced complicity in controversial gender ideology.
As with most contentious issues, it is important that the conversation be allowed to take place in the public square. Naturally, those demanding everyone else fall in line want the article pulled. Hopefully @CanLawMag holds firm & permits different perspectives to be heard.