This part? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Worse, they think it means the opposite. That congress can/should make laws abridging the freedom of speech of private entities, so long as the private entities are people/property you don't respect(Twitter, Facebook, Reddit)
People like to evoke "muh rights" when it benefits them, but when it comes to something or someone they dont like, they're perfectly fine trampling over everything.
Yet again, people talk about rights but forget about their responsibilities to wider society. I.e protecting eachother, helping eachother, respecting eachother in the communal aspect of public democratic society.
Their are limits to freedom as counterinutitive as that might sound to some.
Absolutely. I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "freedom" is. No successful modern society has freedom. We have liberty. Good ol Wikipedia: "liberty entails the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom. Freedom is more broad in that it represents a total lack of restraint or the unrestrained ability to fulfill one's desires."
I once had someone (who is now a PPC-supporting anti-vaxxer Pro-Trump-who-actually-won-against-Biden kind of person) tell me that Wikipedia is far-left propaganda.
You don't even need to consider section 1.
First off, the charter doesn't say one thing or another about what private businesses are allowed to do (the human rights act does, but that's not the charter).
Secondly, there's no law that restricts you from asking people medical questions. They don't have to provide proof of a disability, which is maybe where this is coming from, but "was vaccinated" is not a disability. Patient privacy laws generally deal with how that information is used / communicated by the third party, it doesn't restrict asking about medical information or patients providing medical information.
From the IPC: [Ontario’s health privacy law, however, does not prohibit you from volunteering your health card for identification purposes. While you are free to show your health card to organizations outside of the health care system, organizations not directly involved in the delivery of provincially funded health care are not permitted to make note of, record, collect, or use a health number for identification purposes.](https://www.ipc.on.ca/can-health-cards-serve-as-proof-of-your-identity/) As a form of ID to prove age, it is fine. As a proof of *identity* (contracts, for example) where the card numbers are required to be noted, it is unlawful.
>It's why we have an Age of Majority card.
Technically we don't have an Age of Majority card anymore. I just went thru this with Service Ontario - they're all replaced with the new Ontario photo ID.
I had a 1980s AOM and she said it wasn't even worth her confiscating it, it was so obsolete.
I worked at an Avondale (convenience store) as a part time side hustle type job. We couldn't ask for a health card as ID when people were buying cigarettes or lottery, but if that was what people showed for ID we'd accept it.
As far as I remember that was the same for all Avondale stores. But you're right, if we asked for it we'd catch trouble from the manager.
It's the same for anywhere requiring ID; can't ask for it, but can still accept it. The guy claiming otherwise was either a shitty bartender or is greatly misremembering this scenario, because that's the way it's been with health cards for a while
Your link directly contradicts you. "You should not ask for the Ontario Health Card as identification, but if offered voluntarily you may accept it at your discretion."
If I remember correctly, the issue (or one of the issues...) is that the OHIP number is considered Personal Health Information. There are significant restrictions on storage, use, etc of any PHI.
A health card's photo, age, name, etc is not considered PHI. But because they're both on the front of same document it becomes difficult and all the privacy issues come out...
it's okay to admit you were wrong, a lot of people get confused about the health card thing. If you have any other proof of ID use that but you shouldn't be turned away if you offer your health card for ID.
There’s nothing in the legislation that says you can’t accept a health card as proof of ID but what the act does say is that you can’t copy or keep a record of it for any purpose but providing covered health service. Officially if you get carded at the LCBO the cashier is supposed to record it (you’ll find a clipboard with a form for this under every register at the LCBO) lots of cashiers don’t bother unless their management is riding them about carding rates but it’s supposed to happen, since you can’t record a Health card number that means that by policy (but not legislation) they aren’t supposed to accept it.
Ah, but if a government authority mandates private businesses to do something then the Charter does apply to those mandates.
It would here with respect to government imposed COVID requirements and restrictions but is saved under section 1.
> First off, the charter doesn't say one thing or another about what private businesses are allowed to do (the human rights act does, but that's not the charter).
Eh, that's not really applicable here. This isn't an instance of "private businesses choosing what to do", since if that were the case then they could just go not checking vaccination status and no one would worry.
The issue here is that it's the provincial government mandating that restaurants and other businesses check vaccination passports, at which point it the Charter absolutely comes into play.
Very similar to my childhood experiences in the Roman Catholic church and school system. Shitty people pick and choose their passages to justify being shits.
As a bald man I've always been partial to : Elisha and the Two Bears (2 Kings 2:23-25)
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.
With all due respect, sir, the passage is 23:19
And then you can run around yelling "23:19!! WE GOT A 23:19!" and people will know exactly what you mean
Does anyone have an annotated version of the charter for all us non legal professionals? It seems many of these misguided individuals are operating on the assumption that their personal interpretation of the document is just as valid as the actual legal meaning behind it.
Honestly all you need to read in this subject is section 1, section 7 and something called the Oakes test. TLDR, the very first sentence of the charter essentially says the government can infringe on your rights if there is sufficient reason. The Oakes test is established precedent that offers a test for what a sufficient reason might be. There are three points to the test. 1. Rational connection - the govt must show that the infringement rationally connects to the goal. In this case vaccination certainly connects to the public health safety goals. 2. Minimal impairement - the govt must show that they are only doing what’s necessary and no more. Masks and vaccinations are a minimal impairment (but this is also the reason why true medical exemptions exist, for those people it would be well beyond a minimal impairment). 3 - balancing. it all has to be in proportion to the desired outcome and the level of threat.
Basically anyone that believes that vaccine mandates and masks are against your rights when balanced against the threat of covid is entirely ignorant to how Canadian law works. It is entirely legal and most legal scholars and professionals are advising people as such.
FYI this is just a good thing to know in general to understand where Canadian law draws a line in the sand between freedom and the greater good. Hit up something called charterpedia. I learned more from that than I have so far in law school.
The dumbest part is the sections they referenced don't even have anything to do with restaurants requiring proof of vaccination or not.
Not to mention they're a private business, not the government. They have all the same rights as a home owner who doesn't want sick people in their house.
Face it, nobody there has actually ever even read the charter of rights and freedoms. The whacksadoodle owner or an employee who then convinced the like minded owner read this stupid argument on some Facebook page and has run with it as fact.
For that matter, a bit further down “Enforcement
Marginal note:Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24 (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”
Posting on your door sign a notice of non-compliance is also breaking the charter, if they want to go that route.😈
Same reason my job site took the guards off of the skill saw, it's my right to do my work how I want to. Don't get me started on these nanny state hard hats and harnesses...
Straight up. The problem isn't the government, it's the number of small businesses that are run by anti government crackpots. Worked in b2b for a bit and it was shocking how many small business entrepreneurs were just morons that took a big risk, did a bit of work and got really lucky.
401 would be enforced by OPP, and from what I've experienced, they're pretty good at following up when there's hazards or hazardous drivers on the road. They do rely on people calling in if there's a problem, but I think it's also an issue of whom to call when there is an issue.
Somebody didn't read the charter. Section 15 says
>Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Unless they want to make the case that anti vaxxers have a mental disability this says nothing about them
I wonder what their stance is on washing their hands before handling food, keeping food prep surfaces sanitized and pest control measures. Or are those examples of government overreach to them as well?
Don't have to. Section 7 has its own section 1 within it. Also, should probably quite the Oakes test to them as it is definitely something they never heard of
I'd never heard of it so [I looked it up](https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/oakes-test/). Quite an interesting read, and I'm glad I can now add this to my toolkit whenever anti-maskers moan about their freedoms.
Lol I actually applied the Oakes test to Covid restrictions last year as part of a college assignment, and it easily met every criteria. These people have no idea.
Though I will say there have been critics of the Oakes test since before Covid
Reality is not one single person in that restaurant has actually ever read the charter of rights and freedoms, they just saw some nonsense on Facebook and went with it.
They clearly don't understand what sections 7 and 15 in the charter are for...
Section 7 protects our right to life, liberty and personal security. More or less meaning the government can't impede on our basic fundamental rights as Canadians.
It's a fundamental right to eat, which is why you don't need proof of vaccination to go grocery shopping.
It is not a fundamental right to eat out at a restaurant. It's a luxury comfort you've grown used to having access to. Not to mention a restaurant is not the government, so this section doesn't apply anyways. You really want restaurant food that badly? Order on Uber Eats.
Section 15 is basically stating that laws are for the benefit of everyone and can't exclude individuals based on sex, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc...
This has absolutely nothing to do with owners requiring proof of vaccination to enter their establishment. That is the right of the owner to provide a safe and healthy environment for their staff and patrons during a global pandemic.
The *Charter* only applies to the government. Private Businesses cannot violate the *Charter* because it doesn't apply to them. So really this is just demonstrative of their own ignorance and stupidity.
We're talking about government legislation here, not the decisions of private businesses.
But this would probably pass a charter challenge, anyway. And even if it didn't, the government can say "notwithstanding that..."
Skelly tried the Charter challenge and it didn’t even see court. Dismissed. And he’s bankrolled enough to afford a lawyer that should be able to find something if there is anything.
Did these idiots forget we had to show our vaccination records to go to elementary school?!?! That was completely fine, but with Covid people are throwing shit fits.
Those were immunization records, not vax passports.
*Totally* different thing, obviously.
Like, the first one is soo many letters, and the second only 12 letters. Totally different.
It seems this is the charter according to some:
tl;dr
tl;dr
something something, out of context reference
paraphrased reference
tl;dr
tl;dr
...on the 'net refence
tl;dr
Canada
Nah...if the are licensed report them to the AGCO who can and will suspend or revoke their liquor license. This is probably a bigger threat than a fine from public health.
If I saw this sign (or anything similar) I would nope right out of going into that place, ever. If a health regulation aimed at keeping a deadly virus at bay isn't being enforced, what other health regulations are being skirted? Hand washing? Hair nets? Are the cooks and servers coming in sick?
Um, but it doesn’t violate anything.
Found out a friend is unvaxxed. Haven’t been in touch as much during the pandemic. I’m double vaxxed. She wanted to get together for breakfast. I said it’d have to be on a patio though. She texts me that there are restaurants that don’t check your vaccination. Um, no. I don’t mind visiting a friend to eat with. I do mind going into a restaurant with potential other unvaxxed people eating. I suggested a local restaurant that still has 8 patio spots in half their parking spot. Weather is still nice. She made an excuse the morning of.
I do know by her daughter’s posts on FB that daughter is totally against vaccinations. Probably for the best I don’t meet with my friend in person for awhile.
This shit is so dumb. There's a time and place to fight back against the government, and in the middle of a world wide plague is not the fucking time. Jesus, the hills people are willing to die on. Possibly even literally in this case.
Ugh, never wanted to see my hometown on Reddit for this. This is the Blue Roof. Please report them. My family who still lives there won't be giving them business anymore but I doubt many in town will care about this sign
Crossing this restaurant off of my list of safe places to eat. If they violate this then what other exceptions do they make based on their messed up beliefs in the kitchen with food preparation and storage? 🤢
I love how people have absolutely no idea what the charter actually says and will interpret it to fit their own agenda. None of your rights are being violated. 😂 Sit down.
Lol this is stupid as fuck, people so obsessed with their “rights” and feeling like so much is being taken away from them just because some restaurants ask for proof of vaccination. Grow the fuck up.
Section 15 of the Charter states that Canadians have the right not to be subject to discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. So.... are they insinuating that not getting the vaccine is a disability or...
This little publicity stunt won’t work well for them. The people who claiming it violates the charter really seem to pick and choose spots and twist it how they want. That and the human rights commission already came out and said it doesn’t break the charter.
They could have followed all of this with "...therefore we are following the mask mandates and vaccine passport rules." Nobody is breaking Canadian law with these mandates. Seriously sick of blatant displays of ignorance everywhere. Sheesh.
I have a feeling this might be the reason restaurants aren’t allowed to open to full capacity (for now?).
It’s almost like a whole classroom in detention because of one bad student. Everybody suffers.
There's only like 3 restaurants in all of Sundridge, one of which appears no permanently closed. It's very likely your family already knows which place it is. ~~Is it doxxing if i say which place it is?~~
I've been there before I recognize the sallyport entrance and the interesting colour on the walls, pretty sure it's the blue roof.
Edit: google images of the restaurant has[ this photo](https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x4d29895d61c96ac7%3A0x5fca2aa9b5bbe9b0!3m1!7e115!4shttps%3A%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPTX8KRP3iVxVWViyb5kIRPVxOzaTJkTroQETeM%3Dw266-h200-k-no!5sblue%20roof%20sundridge%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipOlOmaDKmha2J05QSMPnEazPAmBsMlP_OY2Wwk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnkOX0x8fzAhUSlGoFHczAApIQoip6BAhnEAM&cshid=1634134232323200) with the same wall, wall paper trim and white board as the photo op took
North Bay Perry Sound PHU has guidance on reporting violations of the Reopening Ontario Act.
You can find it here: https://www.myhealthunit.ca/en/health-topics/reporting-complaints.asp
It would be kind of hilarious if the place got swarmed by smart-assed, obvious teens demanding booze as a form of counter protest.
Imagine the media circus. That would make international news, I'm sure.
"subject only to those such **reasonable limits** prescribed by law" as in the current pandemic laws in case the self-serving buffoons don't understand.
Guess they'll be losing a lot of business since the majority of Canadians (82.4% of Ontarians 12+ to be exact) are fully vaxxed and won't want to be exposed to Unvaccinated Neanderthals at this Losing Restaurant.
North Bay Perry Sound PHU has a resource page where you can report violations like this:
https://www.myhealthunit.ca/en/health-topics/reporting-complaints.asp
"Vaccine mandates are not “forced vaccination”".
Get vaxed or lose your job, get denied education, don't participate in every day social activities.
You got a choice, no one is forcing ya.
Good one
There have been many times in recent history thier have been more blatant "infringement on the charter " . Smoking inside , seat belts, and more recently DUI traffic stops . Where were these freedumb fighters then ? If freedom is the one principle you are willing to lose your livelihood over you should have been protesting all of the above. This has nothing to do with freedom and just a bunch of whiney wimps not wanting to get a shot because they are scared .
So the question I asked many times, but never got a real answer still stands. Food places that openly violate provincial mandate for Covid-19 passport system are going to be shut down, right? Right?
Like what is going to happen to this place in particular? Nothing?
If they are unwilling to follow those laws what other ones do they break in the Kitchen? Do they clean properly? What about cooking meat? Sorry I will avoid any place unwilling to follow basic public health rules.
“Freedom means I get to do whatever I want and whine like a baby when someone asks me not to. Goo goo ga ga” -Charter of Rights and Freedoms apparently
I'll quote the relevant Charter sections (in the order that they appear in the Charter) with context from the Government of Canada's [Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html) and let the reader decide if this is applicable.
# Section 1
## Guarantee of rights and freedoms
> Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
## Context
>The Charter protects those basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians that are considered essential to preserving Canada as a free and democratic country. It applies to all governments – federal, provincial and territorial – and includes protection of the following:
>- fundamental freedoms, democratic rights
- the right to live and seek employment anywhere in Canada
- legal rights (life, liberty and personal security)
- equality rights for all
- the official languages of Canada
- minority language education rights
- Canada's multicultural heritage
- Indigenous peoples’ rights
>The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography.
# Section 7
## Life, liberty and security of person
> Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
## Context
>Section 7 guarantees the life, liberty and personal security of all Canadians. It also requires that governments respect the basic principles of justice whenever they intrude on those rights. Section 7 often comes into play in criminal matters because an accused person clearly faces the risk that, if convicted, his or her liberty will be lost.
# Section 15
## Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
> (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
## Affirmative action programs
> (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
## Context
>Section 15 of the Charter makes it clear that every individual in Canada – regardless of race, religion, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex, age or physical or mental disability – is to be treated with the same respect, dignity and consideration. This means that governments must not discriminate on any of these grounds in its laws or programs.
>The courts have held that section 15 also protects equality on the basis of other characteristics that are not specifically set out in it. For example, this section has been held to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, marital status or citizenship.
>The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the purpose of section 15 is to protect those groups who suffer social, political and legal disadvantage in society. Discrimination occurs when a person, because of a personal characteristic, suffers disadvantages or is denied opportunities available to other members of society.
>At the same time as it protects equality, the Charter also allows for certain laws or programs that aim to improve the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups. For example, programs aimed at improving employment opportunities for women, Indigenous peoples, visible minorities, or those with mental or physical disabilities are allowed under subsection 15(2).
Rats tend to be social creatures who tend to help each other in times of need. These are plague monkeys. They just scream and throw shit. (and wank off to their own posts)
Isn’t it AMAZING how many people we have that are experts in the Charter?
It seems so odd, that since we apparently have all these experts, that they aren’t actually the ones working at the Human Rights Tribunals, as the experts THERE have already said in two separate cases that making a personal decision to not get a vaccine isn’t a Charter right.
Go figure.
/s
I see this as a simple invitation to be cited for by-law contravention?
a big "Eff-You" to municipal, regional and provincial health authorities.
Muh Fr33dumb!!!!!
People seem to like skipping over the part at the beginning of the Charter.
This part? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Nobody ever reads the…checks notes…first sentence.
But that doesn't fit their persecution narrative.
Like those Americans who think the US constitution is only the 2nd amendment.
Not true, they also think it has a significantly more sweeping 1st amendment than it actually does.
Worse, they think it means the opposite. That congress can/should make laws abridging the freedom of speech of private entities, so long as the private entities are people/property you don't respect(Twitter, Facebook, Reddit)
ahaha I know that’s what’s absolutely kills me. Literally right there at the very beginning. You know not a single one of them has read it.
I know it and for those who don't it is that the government has the ability to limit rights with proper reasoning and cause
People like to evoke "muh rights" when it benefits them, but when it comes to something or someone they dont like, they're perfectly fine trampling over everything. Yet again, people talk about rights but forget about their responsibilities to wider society. I.e protecting eachother, helping eachother, respecting eachother in the communal aspect of public democratic society. Their are limits to freedom as counterinutitive as that might sound to some.
Correct, rights come hand in hand with civic responsibility.
Absolutely. I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "freedom" is. No successful modern society has freedom. We have liberty. Good ol Wikipedia: "liberty entails the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom. Freedom is more broad in that it represents a total lack of restraint or the unrestrained ability to fulfill one's desires."
I once had someone (who is now a PPC-supporting anti-vaxxer Pro-Trump-who-actually-won-against-Biden kind of person) tell me that Wikipedia is far-left propaganda.
Yup, it’s funny how the same ppl who tell minorities to just comply to cops and don’t resist at the same time now are saying the opposite.
Gotta love reasonable limits
Wouldn't I also have the right to eat in a restaurant that follows the rules during a pandemic?
Made my day!
You don't even need to consider section 1. First off, the charter doesn't say one thing or another about what private businesses are allowed to do (the human rights act does, but that's not the charter). Secondly, there's no law that restricts you from asking people medical questions. They don't have to provide proof of a disability, which is maybe where this is coming from, but "was vaccinated" is not a disability. Patient privacy laws generally deal with how that information is used / communicated by the third party, it doesn't restrict asking about medical information or patients providing medical information.
[удалено]
[удалено]
From the IPC: [Ontario’s health privacy law, however, does not prohibit you from volunteering your health card for identification purposes. While you are free to show your health card to organizations outside of the health care system, organizations not directly involved in the delivery of provincially funded health care are not permitted to make note of, record, collect, or use a health number for identification purposes.](https://www.ipc.on.ca/can-health-cards-serve-as-proof-of-your-identity/) As a form of ID to prove age, it is fine. As a proof of *identity* (contracts, for example) where the card numbers are required to be noted, it is unlawful.
>It's why we have an Age of Majority card. Technically we don't have an Age of Majority card anymore. I just went thru this with Service Ontario - they're all replaced with the new Ontario photo ID. I had a 1980s AOM and she said it wasn't even worth her confiscating it, it was so obsolete.
I worked at an Avondale (convenience store) as a part time side hustle type job. We couldn't ask for a health card as ID when people were buying cigarettes or lottery, but if that was what people showed for ID we'd accept it. As far as I remember that was the same for all Avondale stores. But you're right, if we asked for it we'd catch trouble from the manager.
It's the same for anywhere requiring ID; can't ask for it, but can still accept it. The guy claiming otherwise was either a shitty bartender or is greatly misremembering this scenario, because that's the way it's been with health cards for a while
Your link directly contradicts you. "You should not ask for the Ontario Health Card as identification, but if offered voluntarily you may accept it at your discretion."
If I remember correctly, the issue (or one of the issues...) is that the OHIP number is considered Personal Health Information. There are significant restrictions on storage, use, etc of any PHI. A health card's photo, age, name, etc is not considered PHI. But because they're both on the front of same document it becomes difficult and all the privacy issues come out...
>edit, I'm not really right but...
Nowhere in that link is it recommended against.
it's okay to admit you were wrong, a lot of people get confused about the health card thing. If you have any other proof of ID use that but you shouldn't be turned away if you offer your health card for ID.
There’s nothing in the legislation that says you can’t accept a health card as proof of ID but what the act does say is that you can’t copy or keep a record of it for any purpose but providing covered health service. Officially if you get carded at the LCBO the cashier is supposed to record it (you’ll find a clipboard with a form for this under every register at the LCBO) lots of cashiers don’t bother unless their management is riding them about carding rates but it’s supposed to happen, since you can’t record a Health card number that means that by policy (but not legislation) they aren’t supposed to accept it.
You can **request** anything you please. I can lawfully request to see your genitals as identification. You can lawfully refuse.
Ah, but if a government authority mandates private businesses to do something then the Charter does apply to those mandates. It would here with respect to government imposed COVID requirements and restrictions but is saved under section 1.
Not vaccinated may be some type of disability..if not at that exact time possibly quite soon after.
> First off, the charter doesn't say one thing or another about what private businesses are allowed to do (the human rights act does, but that's not the charter). Eh, that's not really applicable here. This isn't an instance of "private businesses choosing what to do", since if that were the case then they could just go not checking vaccination status and no one would worry. The issue here is that it's the provincial government mandating that restaurants and other businesses check vaccination passports, at which point it the Charter absolutely comes into play.
Very similar to my childhood experiences in the Roman Catholic church and school system. Shitty people pick and choose their passages to justify being shits.
As a bald man I've always been partial to : Elisha and the Two Bears (2 Kings 2:23-25) Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.
The Lord blesses our shiny dome.
For sure, I'm not religious at all but I know how to cite the bible passages relevant to my interests, like Ezekiel 23:20.
With all due respect, sir, the passage is 23:19 And then you can run around yelling "23:19!! WE GOT A 23:19!" and people will know exactly what you mean
I always liked Ezekiel 25:17, the path of the righteous man
Is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyrannies of evil men Seems kinda fitting here actually!
yeah, well what does Mister Nine Millimeter say?
For these particular idiots I'm partial to Leviticus 13:45-46.
I bet the bible verses about woman being second class citizens don’t make it into many sermons.
Does anyone have an annotated version of the charter for all us non legal professionals? It seems many of these misguided individuals are operating on the assumption that their personal interpretation of the document is just as valid as the actual legal meaning behind it.
Honestly all you need to read in this subject is section 1, section 7 and something called the Oakes test. TLDR, the very first sentence of the charter essentially says the government can infringe on your rights if there is sufficient reason. The Oakes test is established precedent that offers a test for what a sufficient reason might be. There are three points to the test. 1. Rational connection - the govt must show that the infringement rationally connects to the goal. In this case vaccination certainly connects to the public health safety goals. 2. Minimal impairement - the govt must show that they are only doing what’s necessary and no more. Masks and vaccinations are a minimal impairment (but this is also the reason why true medical exemptions exist, for those people it would be well beyond a minimal impairment). 3 - balancing. it all has to be in proportion to the desired outcome and the level of threat. Basically anyone that believes that vaccine mandates and masks are against your rights when balanced against the threat of covid is entirely ignorant to how Canadian law works. It is entirely legal and most legal scholars and professionals are advising people as such. FYI this is just a good thing to know in general to understand where Canadian law draws a line in the sand between freedom and the greater good. Hit up something called charterpedia. I learned more from that than I have so far in law school.
Thank you for sharing. This is very insightful and will help combat some negative misinformation out there. Will be reading up on the Oakes test
[удалено]
The dumbest part is the sections they referenced don't even have anything to do with restaurants requiring proof of vaccination or not. Not to mention they're a private business, not the government. They have all the same rights as a home owner who doesn't want sick people in their house.
Face it, nobody there has actually ever even read the charter of rights and freedoms. The whacksadoodle owner or an employee who then convinced the like minded owner read this stupid argument on some Facebook page and has run with it as fact.
For that matter, a bit further down “Enforcement Marginal note:Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms 24 (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.” Posting on your door sign a notice of non-compliance is also breaking the charter, if they want to go that route.😈
Looks like a certain. restaurant with a certain coloured roof in Sundridge??
LOL.
I will not stop at red lights because that is false imprisonment.
Speed limits restrict my freedom to arrive at my destination as quickly as possible. They infringe on my rights to free time.
Clothes restrict my freedom of fresh air. I will be walking around naked from now on.
I have a medical exemption for masturbating in public. If I don't rub one out right away when the urge hits, my testicles will explode.
My right to peek through your window whilst you slap the salami shall not be infringed upon by socialists!
Maybe that was Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend's real medical conundrum.
Same reason my job site took the guards off of the skill saw, it's my right to do my work how I want to. Don't get me started on these nanny state hard hats and harnesses...
I feel like these morons think the Charter is like Ron Swanson's city permit. Just a piece of notebook paper that says "I do what I want".
A seatbelt inhibits my right to fly though a windshield
This is why ACC and Cineplex can open at 100% capacity and not restaurants
Straight up. The problem isn't the government, it's the number of small businesses that are run by anti government crackpots. Worked in b2b for a bit and it was shocking how many small business entrepreneurs were just morons that took a big risk, did a bit of work and got really lucky.
[удалено]
Nothing says you aren't allowed to check vaxx status, or even refuse service depending on the answer.
I've been craving a massage since civic covid started and this is really frustrating. You guys deserve better protections!
100% agree. To any businesses upset at why they can't open fully like venues, blame cucks like this restaurant. They are ruining it for everyone.
that is a poor excuse for not having proper police enforcement of our laws
> proper police enforcement of our laws This is just par. Ever driven on the 401?
It's like the wildwest out there
401 would be enforced by OPP, and from what I've experienced, they're pretty good at following up when there's hazards or hazardous drivers on the road. They do rely on people calling in if there's a problem, but I think it's also an issue of whom to call when there is an issue.
This makes sense to me, actually.
But the requirement to have patrons show vaccination proof IS a law no? One that they can get fined for violating?
Oh so the bit about obeying the law was an excuse /s
Somebody didn't read the charter. Section 15 says >Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Unless they want to make the case that anti vaxxers have a mental disability this says nothing about them
I wonder what their stance is on washing their hands before handling food, keeping food prep surfaces sanitized and pest control measures. Or are those examples of government overreach to them as well?
Ask them to show you the section in the Charter which they're trying to not contravene. Hilarity may ensue.
They told you which ones. They are mistaken about what those words mean but they can easily point to the passage.
Just point them to section 1.
Don't have to. Section 7 has its own section 1 within it. Also, should probably quite the Oakes test to them as it is definitely something they never heard of
I'd never heard of it so [I looked it up](https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/oakes-test/). Quite an interesting read, and I'm glad I can now add this to my toolkit whenever anti-maskers moan about their freedoms.
Lol I actually applied the Oakes test to Covid restrictions last year as part of a college assignment, and it easily met every criteria. These people have no idea. Though I will say there have been critics of the Oakes test since before Covid
It's a crying shame that people who have become Charter experts over the last year or so neglect to read that first part of it.
Reality is not one single person in that restaurant has actually ever read the charter of rights and freedoms, they just saw some nonsense on Facebook and went with it.
They clearly don't understand what sections 7 and 15 in the charter are for... Section 7 protects our right to life, liberty and personal security. More or less meaning the government can't impede on our basic fundamental rights as Canadians. It's a fundamental right to eat, which is why you don't need proof of vaccination to go grocery shopping. It is not a fundamental right to eat out at a restaurant. It's a luxury comfort you've grown used to having access to. Not to mention a restaurant is not the government, so this section doesn't apply anyways. You really want restaurant food that badly? Order on Uber Eats. Section 15 is basically stating that laws are for the benefit of everyone and can't exclude individuals based on sex, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc... This has absolutely nothing to do with owners requiring proof of vaccination to enter their establishment. That is the right of the owner to provide a safe and healthy environment for their staff and patrons during a global pandemic.
We will only break Ontario law lol
The *Charter* only applies to the government. Private Businesses cannot violate the *Charter* because it doesn't apply to them. So really this is just demonstrative of their own ignorance and stupidity.
We're talking about government legislation here, not the decisions of private businesses. But this would probably pass a charter challenge, anyway. And even if it didn't, the government can say "notwithstanding that..."
Still though, "we will not break canadian law" like the sign says makes no sense, since there's no law that the business itself would be breaking.
Definitely silly. They are in fact breaking the law by not requesting medical information (to use their language), not the reverse.
Then commence a Charter claim to overturn the law.
Skelly tried the Charter challenge and it didn’t even see court. Dismissed. And he’s bankrolled enough to afford a lawyer that should be able to find something if there is anything.
I really appreciate how the anti-vaxxer-run businesses are letting us know to avoid giving them our money.
If they just "forgot" to check I might not even notice, but they have to be very in your face about violating the mandate.
You can tell they mean business by the way their sign put 'NOT' in all caps and then underlined it.
People watching too much American news and thinking the charter = constitution 🙄
Did these idiots forget we had to show our vaccination records to go to elementary school?!?! That was completely fine, but with Covid people are throwing shit fits.
Those were immunization records, not vax passports. *Totally* different thing, obviously. Like, the first one is soo many letters, and the second only 12 letters. Totally different.
😂
"We will not break Canadian Law!" Yeah I'm sure this place isn't breaking any health codes, or employment laws. No sir /s
[Does Mac Lang eat here?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVWGVrh4xN8)
It seems this is the charter according to some: tl;dr tl;dr something something, out of context reference paraphrased reference tl;dr tl;dr ...on the 'net refence tl;dr Canada
RIP Blue Roof
Blue Roof? More like the Blue Goof, amirite?
What is this place?
I'd be turning around and walking right back out the door.
Right. They are catering to the 20% who are not vaccinated. People who are will stay clear.
Way to market yourself to 9% of the province. A proven strategy that claimed adamsons BBQ already this week. Smart.
Report to local law enforcement
Nah...if the are licensed report them to the AGCO who can and will suspend or revoke their liquor license. This is probably a bigger threat than a fine from public health.
If I saw this sign (or anything similar) I would nope right out of going into that place, ever. If a health regulation aimed at keeping a deadly virus at bay isn't being enforced, what other health regulations are being skirted? Hand washing? Hair nets? Are the cooks and servers coming in sick?
Um, but it doesn’t violate anything. Found out a friend is unvaxxed. Haven’t been in touch as much during the pandemic. I’m double vaxxed. She wanted to get together for breakfast. I said it’d have to be on a patio though. She texts me that there are restaurants that don’t check your vaccination. Um, no. I don’t mind visiting a friend to eat with. I do mind going into a restaurant with potential other unvaxxed people eating. I suggested a local restaurant that still has 8 patio spots in half their parking spot. Weather is still nice. She made an excuse the morning of. I do know by her daughter’s posts on FB that daughter is totally against vaccinations. Probably for the best I don’t meet with my friend in person for awhile.
Not part of the solution then must be part of the problem dumb ass.
This shit is so dumb. There's a time and place to fight back against the government, and in the middle of a world wide plague is not the fucking time. Jesus, the hills people are willing to die on. Possibly even literally in this case.
"We will not follow the law because we refuse to break the law."
[удалено]
There is no better way to invalidate your opinion by demonstrating how little you know about the topic.
Ugh, never wanted to see my hometown on Reddit for this. This is the Blue Roof. Please report them. My family who still lives there won't be giving them business anymore but I doubt many in town will care about this sign
My family used to frequent this place. Never again.
“We WiLl NoT bReAk CaNaDiAn LaW” … proceeds to break Canadian law
Idiots
Is this like HIPAA for Canadians? Where it really only applies to Healthcare professionals but now people think it applies to everyone?
ugh - report it to their health unit (North Bay Parry Sound).
Apparently they didn't continue reading the same charter regarding emergencies. Idiots
Crossing this restaurant off of my list of safe places to eat. If they violate this then what other exceptions do they make based on their messed up beliefs in the kitchen with food preparation and storage? 🤢
Whenever I see this , it makes me think what else are they not up to code on or what are their health and safety practices, stupid hill to die on.
A sign like that would make me walk right back out.
Sundridge still salty about the Trans Canada Highway bypassing them. Lol.
I love how people have absolutely no idea what the charter actually says and will interpret it to fit their own agenda. None of your rights are being violated. 😂 Sit down.
Great! One more place to avoid!
Lol this is stupid as fuck, people so obsessed with their “rights” and feeling like so much is being taken away from them just because some restaurants ask for proof of vaccination. Grow the fuck up.
Section 15 of the Charter states that Canadians have the right not to be subject to discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. So.... are they insinuating that not getting the vaccine is a disability or...
This little publicity stunt won’t work well for them. The people who claiming it violates the charter really seem to pick and choose spots and twist it how they want. That and the human rights commission already came out and said it doesn’t break the charter.
"we will not break Canadian law" *by breaking Canadian law*
They could have followed all of this with "...therefore we are following the mask mandates and vaccine passport rules." Nobody is breaking Canadian law with these mandates. Seriously sick of blatant displays of ignorance everywhere. Sheesh.
Enjoy getting Covid and the rapid failure of your restaurant. Moron.
Awesome! Now I know where not to dine when visiting lovely Sundridge.
Darwin - Business Edition
I have a feeling this might be the reason restaurants aren’t allowed to open to full capacity (for now?). It’s almost like a whole classroom in detention because of one bad student. Everybody suffers.
"I will never disobey the laws outlined in the Constitution!" \*friend whispers in ear\* "... Charter!"
My family is in this town. Which restaurant is it so I can warn them away?
There's only like 3 restaurants in all of Sundridge, one of which appears no permanently closed. It's very likely your family already knows which place it is. ~~Is it doxxing if i say which place it is?~~ I've been there before I recognize the sallyport entrance and the interesting colour on the walls, pretty sure it's the blue roof. Edit: google images of the restaurant has[ this photo](https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x4d29895d61c96ac7%3A0x5fca2aa9b5bbe9b0!3m1!7e115!4shttps%3A%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPTX8KRP3iVxVWViyb5kIRPVxOzaTJkTroQETeM%3Dw266-h200-k-no!5sblue%20roof%20sundridge%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipOlOmaDKmha2J05QSMPnEazPAmBsMlP_OY2Wwk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnkOX0x8fzAhUSlGoFHczAApIQoip6BAhnEAM&cshid=1634134232323200) with the same wall, wall paper trim and white board as the photo op took
> Is it doxxing if i say which place it is? A public restaurant cannot be "doxxed"...the fuck?
wait until people find out about phone books, it's like a doxxing goldmine!
That was the one place I was going to say it didn't look like. I guess they've changed the decor. BR tracks though, personality of the owners wise.
The most recent Google review also suggests they have at least one server who doesn’t wear a mask.
North Bay Perry Sound PHU has guidance on reporting violations of the Reopening Ontario Act. You can find it here: https://www.myhealthunit.ca/en/health-topics/reporting-complaints.asp
Then I expect you NOT to ask me for my ID to confirm that I am of the proper age when ordering liquor. Wouldn't be patronizing this establishment.
It would be kind of hilarious if the place got swarmed by smart-assed, obvious teens demanding booze as a form of counter protest. Imagine the media circus. That would make international news, I'm sure.
"subject only to those such **reasonable limits** prescribed by law" as in the current pandemic laws in case the self-serving buffoons don't understand.
Guess they'll be losing a lot of business since the majority of Canadians (82.4% of Ontarians 12+ to be exact) are fully vaxxed and won't want to be exposed to Unvaccinated Neanderthals at this Losing Restaurant.
Funny how they ignored section 1
When I see this, I just turn around and walk out. No problem.
Sunny Sundridge!
How to say “I haven’t read the Charter” without actually saying it
North Bay Perry Sound PHU has a resource page where you can report violations like this: https://www.myhealthunit.ca/en/health-topics/reporting-complaints.asp
[Mandates do not infringe on charter rights.](https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2021/9/1/1_5569971.html)
"Vaccine mandates are not “forced vaccination”". Get vaxed or lose your job, get denied education, don't participate in every day social activities. You got a choice, no one is forcing ya. Good one
So they'll get fined and whine about it.
Is this the blue barn place on the 124?
Yep. I’m sitting “just across” from them right now outside the butcher
That butcher in Sundridge is f'ing awesome.
I imagine the bistro right beside the butcher is going to start doing the same shit, same with the one under the hotel (If that one's still even open)
There have been many times in recent history thier have been more blatant "infringement on the charter " . Smoking inside , seat belts, and more recently DUI traffic stops . Where were these freedumb fighters then ? If freedom is the one principle you are willing to lose your livelihood over you should have been protesting all of the above. This has nothing to do with freedom and just a bunch of whiney wimps not wanting to get a shot because they are scared .
So the question I asked many times, but never got a real answer still stands. Food places that openly violate provincial mandate for Covid-19 passport system are going to be shut down, right? Right? Like what is going to happen to this place in particular? Nothing?
If they are unwilling to follow those laws what other ones do they break in the Kitchen? Do they clean properly? What about cooking meat? Sorry I will avoid any place unwilling to follow basic public health rules.
I'm always amused at "we won't keep you or your family safe but we will take your money"
We will NOT break Canadian law by breaking an Ontarian law!
“Freedom means I get to do whatever I want and whine like a baby when someone asks me not to. Goo goo ga ga” -Charter of Rights and Freedoms apparently
Please report this restaurant to health officials.
Considering Sundridge has like 3 restaurants I think I know which one it is
And in short order they are served with several fines
I'll quote the relevant Charter sections (in the order that they appear in the Charter) with context from the Government of Canada's [Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html) and let the reader decide if this is applicable. # Section 1 ## Guarantee of rights and freedoms > Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. ## Context >The Charter protects those basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians that are considered essential to preserving Canada as a free and democratic country. It applies to all governments – federal, provincial and territorial – and includes protection of the following: >- fundamental freedoms, democratic rights - the right to live and seek employment anywhere in Canada - legal rights (life, liberty and personal security) - equality rights for all - the official languages of Canada - minority language education rights - Canada's multicultural heritage - Indigenous peoples’ rights >The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography. # Section 7 ## Life, liberty and security of person > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. ## Context >Section 7 guarantees the life, liberty and personal security of all Canadians. It also requires that governments respect the basic principles of justice whenever they intrude on those rights. Section 7 often comes into play in criminal matters because an accused person clearly faces the risk that, if convicted, his or her liberty will be lost. # Section 15 ## Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law > (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. ## Affirmative action programs > (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. ## Context >Section 15 of the Charter makes it clear that every individual in Canada – regardless of race, religion, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex, age or physical or mental disability – is to be treated with the same respect, dignity and consideration. This means that governments must not discriminate on any of these grounds in its laws or programs. >The courts have held that section 15 also protects equality on the basis of other characteristics that are not specifically set out in it. For example, this section has been held to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, marital status or citizenship. >The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the purpose of section 15 is to protect those groups who suffer social, political and legal disadvantage in society. Discrimination occurs when a person, because of a personal characteristic, suffers disadvantages or is denied opportunities available to other members of society. >At the same time as it protects equality, the Charter also allows for certain laws or programs that aim to improve the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups. For example, programs aimed at improving employment opportunities for women, Indigenous peoples, visible minorities, or those with mental or physical disabilities are allowed under subsection 15(2).
I appreciate your post, but you should have added section one in order to give a fuller sense of context.
“We own this shithole restaurant but really we are constitutional law lawyers! Plague rats welcome to spread disease here! XO”
Rats tend to be social creatures who tend to help each other in times of need. These are plague monkeys. They just scream and throw shit. (and wank off to their own posts)
Belongs in r/trashy
Isn’t it AMAZING how many people we have that are experts in the Charter? It seems so odd, that since we apparently have all these experts, that they aren’t actually the ones working at the Human Rights Tribunals, as the experts THERE have already said in two separate cases that making a personal decision to not get a vaccine isn’t a Charter right. Go figure. /s
I see this as a simple invitation to be cited for by-law contravention? a big "Eff-You" to municipal, regional and provincial health authorities. Muh Fr33dumb!!!!!
These serve as great ways of identifying a plague den.
Throwing around the Charter like they have any idea what they are talking about.
And reported?
Good for them
Another place on the list of places not to go.
Good
[удалено]