News
Featured Image
 Shutterstock

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

(LifeSiteNews) – The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) provided updated information on the legitimacy of mandated vaccines and vaccine passports, stating that “receiving a COVID-19 vaccine remains voluntary but that vaccine requirements are ‘generally permissible’ under the (Ontario Human Rights) Code provided that protections are put in place to make sure people in all organizations who are unable to be vaccinated for Code-related reasons are reasonably accommodated.” 

On September 22, the OHRC published a statement outlining their opinion of how vaccine mandates and passports fit under the umbrella of human rights protection in Ontario. The statement from the OHRC provides information on obtaining a vaccine passport at the outset of the document before it mentions whether encroaching vaccine requirements are legitimate or permissible in the province of Ontario.

The OHRC is clear that people with medical or disability reasons for not taking the experimental jab must be accommodated under rights outlined by the Code. However, the duty to accommodate is limited to circumstances that could “significantly interfere with people’s health and safety.”

Those who are exempted from taking the shot for health reasons must provide written proof from a certified medical professional. The OHRC stated that exempting someone for medical reasons constitutes “reasonable accommodation” under the Code.

“Upholding individual human rights while trying to collectively protect the general public has been a challenge throughout the pandemic,” the commission added. “Organizations must attempt to balance the rights of people who have not been vaccinated due to a Code-protected ground, such as disability, while ensuring individual and collective rights to health and safety.”

Respecting the natural and legal right of citizens has been on the minds of many Ontarians since the pandemic was declared, especially as churches have been closed by the government, and people have been denied access to dying loved ones for long periods of time.

The OHRC seemed to agree with the suspension of constitutional rights during a health emergency. In a statement, it says, “The duty to accommodate can be limited if it would significantly compromise health and safety amounting to undue hardship – such as during a pandemic.”

The statement reiterated government messaging about enforcement of vaccine passport policies: “Under the provincial regime, organizations are responsible for making sure they meet the required proofs of identification and vaccination as outlined in the regulation.”

The Reopening of Ontario Act is the provincial framework used to justify the indefinite suspension of rights and freedoms of Ontarians by lockdown restrictions.

The OHRC did not stipulate or provide guidance as to what authority the mandates are to be enforced. Numerous police organizations have made it clear they are not certain that there are any legal grounds by which they can enforce the measures.

According to the statement, the “OHRC’s position is that a person who chooses not to be vaccinated based on personal preference does not have the right to accommodation under the Code.” The notion of “personal preference” is juxtaposed against recognition of an individuals right to not be discriminated against for reasons of their “creed.” Under the Code, creed includes, but is not necessarily limited to, “religious creed” or “religion.”

The OHRC recognized the challenges to religious people because of vaccine mandates but wrote that “the duty to accommodate does not necessarily require they be exempted from vaccine mandates, certification or COVID testing requirements.”

An official statement of what constitutes “creed” discrimination is then provided by the OHRC, which seems to contradict their own statements. Their own policy on preventing discrimination against people for creed reasons states:

“Employers, service providers, unions and housing providers have a legal duty to accommodate people’s beliefs and practices to the point of undue hardship where these are:

  • Adversely affected by a standard, rule or requirement of the organization
  • Sincerely (honestly) held
  • Connected to a creed.”

As it stands, there are no exemptions for religious Ontarians regarding the vaccine passports, which prohibits them from fully accessing certain service providers, and many are being forced out of their jobs.

The discrimination policy also states:

“The most appropriate accommodation is the one that most:

  • Respects dignity (including autonomy, comfort, and confidentiality)
  • Responds to a person’s individualized needs
  • Allows for integration and full participation.” 

Bodily autonomy is at the forefront of the vaccine debate, as is confidentiality. Vaccine coercions works against full bodily autonomy, and having to provide personal medical information makes the notion of confidentiality in public settings dubious. In addition, those who are not vaccinated are clearly not allowed to integrate or participate fully in social life.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.