This is even worse than the Alberta Sovereignty (Except It’s Not, Quite) Act. Imagine a Canadian premier personally strong-arming companies to abandon occupational health and safety measures. Imagine saying, “No, you shouldn’t discriminate against people who don’t want to wear safety glasses. I don’t care if there’s a hazard from flying debris, if somebody wants to wear regular glasses or none at all, that’s his choice.”
I wonder what Occupational Safety & Health, not to mention Workers’ Compensation, would say about this.
My mom was placed in long-term care this March. In the nine months since, they’ve reported three outbreaks of Covid-19 among the residents. Since all have been vaccinated, only one person died during the outbreaks—and for privacy reasons, they told only the relative of the deceased what caused the death. Remember the shock and outrage in 2020 when folks in LTC homes were dying, alone, their families forbidden to say goodbye.
This facility has a Covid vaccination policy. No jab—no job. It’s to protect the residents. They’re either physically or mentally compromised, so they have enough problems without severe illness, too. I don’t doubt there are other vaccinations, required by public-health legislation, for other diseases. Flu shot, anyone?
What’s gonna happen in LTC facilities if Smith tries her “drop the vax or else” blackmail?
Smith’s fixation on “vaccine victims” is dangerously unhinged. Yeah, vax refusniks have a choice—but they refuse to accept that there are consequences. They’re not the only ones who get sick. That’s why companies require vaccination, or regular testing to ensure nobody who’s not vaccinated is spreading Covid at work. It’s also why at least some provincial courts (how about the Supreme Court?) have ruled employers have not just a right but a legal responsibility to protect their workers from the spread of this dangerous disease. (And now I wish I’d bookmarked some of those news reports. Oh well….)
If she tried this with anything other than Covid vaccines, Smith would be drummed out of the party for stupidity.
She’s not understanding how this evolved. I work in a business centre and one business has two employees out of ten “healthy” enough to work. Liability is a huge consideration for a business. She’s behaving in an autocratic way to correct a perceived wrong. For a libertarian it’s rather an odd flex.
Yup she seems unable to consider the consequences to those who need protection. Hope she doesn’t make LTC abide by her rules. It’s important that we all don’t forget her actions in 6 months.
My guess is she's hearing that targeting COVID vaccine 'protection' only won't stand. They're going to have to allow people to refuse ALL vaccines with no consequences, meaning childhood vax rates will go even lower than they in AB and in no time we're going to have regular measles and pertussis out breaks.
I'm convinced Alberta should have a school for politician-wannabes: "Practical Government: Laws, Procedures & Limitations." Teaching people what governments can't do would eliminate a lot of nonsense. Requiring (say) 75% passing grade would eliminate a lot of would-be candidates. (While I'm dreaming, I might as well dream big!)
I think 'not understanding legislation' or the legal concepts underpinning it will be a hallmark of this (hopefully brief) government. A simplistic take on human rights and human rights legislation and protections is also a hallmark of libertarians and conservatives, basically 'It gets in my way of doing whatever I want'. Freedom 'to' always outweighs freedom 'from'.
Good article Lisa… a dangerous position for Smith, although I don’t think she quite understands it.. She may be intelligent but some days it certainly doesn’t show and there’s always someone bigger and meaner with a bigger stick who will challenge all this nonsense… she may find herself in the “ penalty box” with Albertans as this is a slim minority she’s catering to…
This is even worse than the Alberta Sovereignty (Except It’s Not, Quite) Act. Imagine a Canadian premier personally strong-arming companies to abandon occupational health and safety measures. Imagine saying, “No, you shouldn’t discriminate against people who don’t want to wear safety glasses. I don’t care if there’s a hazard from flying debris, if somebody wants to wear regular glasses or none at all, that’s his choice.”
I wonder what Occupational Safety & Health, not to mention Workers’ Compensation, would say about this.
My mom was placed in long-term care this March. In the nine months since, they’ve reported three outbreaks of Covid-19 among the residents. Since all have been vaccinated, only one person died during the outbreaks—and for privacy reasons, they told only the relative of the deceased what caused the death. Remember the shock and outrage in 2020 when folks in LTC homes were dying, alone, their families forbidden to say goodbye.
This facility has a Covid vaccination policy. No jab—no job. It’s to protect the residents. They’re either physically or mentally compromised, so they have enough problems without severe illness, too. I don’t doubt there are other vaccinations, required by public-health legislation, for other diseases. Flu shot, anyone?
What’s gonna happen in LTC facilities if Smith tries her “drop the vax or else” blackmail?
Smith’s fixation on “vaccine victims” is dangerously unhinged. Yeah, vax refusniks have a choice—but they refuse to accept that there are consequences. They’re not the only ones who get sick. That’s why companies require vaccination, or regular testing to ensure nobody who’s not vaccinated is spreading Covid at work. It’s also why at least some provincial courts (how about the Supreme Court?) have ruled employers have not just a right but a legal responsibility to protect their workers from the spread of this dangerous disease. (And now I wish I’d bookmarked some of those news reports. Oh well….)
If she tried this with anything other than Covid vaccines, Smith would be drummed out of the party for stupidity.
She’s not understanding how this evolved. I work in a business centre and one business has two employees out of ten “healthy” enough to work. Liability is a huge consideration for a business. She’s behaving in an autocratic way to correct a perceived wrong. For a libertarian it’s rather an odd flex.
Yup she seems unable to consider the consequences to those who need protection. Hope she doesn’t make LTC abide by her rules. It’s important that we all don’t forget her actions in 6 months.
Indeed, because of all this, but also because of what's in the Sovereignty Act. It's an aspiring autocrats dream legislation.
My guess is she's hearing that targeting COVID vaccine 'protection' only won't stand. They're going to have to allow people to refuse ALL vaccines with no consequences, meaning childhood vax rates will go even lower than they in AB and in no time we're going to have regular measles and pertussis out breaks.
The human rights acts are very complex, when you don’t understand the legislations it sounds easy to do.
I'm convinced Alberta should have a school for politician-wannabes: "Practical Government: Laws, Procedures & Limitations." Teaching people what governments can't do would eliminate a lot of nonsense. Requiring (say) 75% passing grade would eliminate a lot of would-be candidates. (While I'm dreaming, I might as well dream big!)
I think 'not understanding legislation' or the legal concepts underpinning it will be a hallmark of this (hopefully brief) government. A simplistic take on human rights and human rights legislation and protections is also a hallmark of libertarians and conservatives, basically 'It gets in my way of doing whatever I want'. Freedom 'to' always outweighs freedom 'from'.
Good article Lisa… a dangerous position for Smith, although I don’t think she quite understands it.. She may be intelligent but some days it certainly doesn’t show and there’s always someone bigger and meaner with a bigger stick who will challenge all this nonsense… she may find herself in the “ penalty box” with Albertans as this is a slim minority she’s catering to…