评论列表
  1. 无忧资讯 /
  2. 本地 /
  3. 人权法不是拒绝接种疫苗人士的保护伞 /
  4. 全部评论 /

安省人权法案不是拒绝接种疫苗人士的保护伞

阅读全文
纽伦堡法典 ~ 被世界医药届公认的条例与准则, ”1.受试者的自愿同意绝对必要。这意味着接受试验的人有同意的合法权力;应该处于有选择自由的地位,不受任何势力的干涉、欺瞒、蒙蔽、挟持,哄骗或者其他某种隐蔽形式的压制或强迫;对于试验的项目有充分的知识和理解,足以作出肯定决定之前,必须让他知道试验的性质、期限和目的;试验方法及采取的手段;可以预料得到的不便和危险,对其健康或可能参与实验的人的影响。确保同意的质量的义务和责任,落在每个发起、指导和从事这个实验的个人身上。这只是一种个人的义务和责任,并不是代表别人,自己却可以逍遥法外。 2.实验应该收到对社会有利的富有成效的结果,用其他研究方法或手段是无法达到的,在性质上不是轻率和不必要的。 3.实验应该立足于动物实验取得结果,对疾病的自然历史和,别的问题有所了解的基础上,经过研究,参加实验的结果将证实原来的实验是正确的。 4.实验进行必须力求避免在肉体上和精神上的痛苦和创伤。 5.事先就有理由相信会发生死亡或残废的实验一律不得进行,除了实验的医生自己也成为受试者的实验不在此限。 6.实验的危险性,不能超过实验所解决问题的人道主义的重要性。 7.必须作好充分准备和有足够能力保护受拭者排除那怕是微之又微的创伤、残废和死亡的可能性。 8.实验只能由科学上合格的人进行。进行实验的人员,在实验的每一阶段都需要有极高的技术和管理。 9.当受试者在实验过程中,已经到达这样的肉体与精神状态,即继续进行已经不可能的时候,完全有停止实验的自由。 10.在实验过程中,主持实验的科学工作者,如果他有充分理由相信即使操作是诚心诚意的,技术也是高超的,判断是审慎的,但是实验继续进行,受试者照样还要出现创伤、残废和死亡的时候,必须随时中断实验。 “ 有任何一款新冠疫苗遵守了这些条例了吗?
回复
这次新冠疫苗都是WHO紧急批准。 要问的话,不如问问台湾岛的最自称自由民主的牛B鸣金裆大捞金护航的“高端”疫苗以及另一疫苗,二期做什么桥接测试,三期都完全不做。
回复
请注意,“强迫”分为两种,直接强迫(直接威胁你要去打疫苗),间接强迫(间接威胁你,例如,不打疫苗就被公司开除,不允许去公共场所购物,旅游,等等)。这两种强迫都不应该存在。
回复
仅仅靠自己的理解, 不能就法理意义武断做出结论。 这篇文章的标题和结论严重误导读者视听。 同春姐的“不要把法律当挡箭牌”的论调如出一辙。
回复
不要拿法律当挡箭牌不是春姐儿说的。
回复
抗新冠就是一场战争,每个人都是战士,如果你不打疫苗就是逃兵与人权无关
回复
撒旦的混蛋言论,无视,阴谋政客垃圾
回复
这篇文章标题文革味很重,人权法既然是法就必须遵守,没有例外。不像在中国随便拿个理由就可以做一些不合法的事。合理不合理是因人而异的。
回复
强制可以,打死了或打残了,政府必须赔偿几千万加币。
回复
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/covid-19-and-ontario%E2%80%99s-human-rights-code-%E2%80%93-questions-and-answers 4. Can my employer or any service or housing provider require proof that I’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine? Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is voluntary. At the same time, governments across Canada are examining and beginning to set conditions where proof of vaccination may be required to take part in some activities. Requiring proof of vaccination to ensure fitness to safely perform work, or protect people receiving services or living in congregate housing, may be permissible under the Code if the requirement is made in good faith and is reasonably necessary for reasons related to health and safety. The Code grounds of disability and/or creed may be engaged when employers, housing or other service providers impose medical testing or treatment requirements, including proof of vaccination. Under the Code, organizations have a duty to accommodate people who may be unable to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, for reasons related to disability or creed, unless it would amount to undue hardship based on cost or health and safety. The right to be free from discrimination can be limited under the Code, where, for example, broader health and safety risks are serious, like in a pandemic, and would amount to undue hardship. The OHRC and relevant human rights laws like the Code recognize the importance of balancing people’s right to non-discrimination and civil liberties with public health and safety, including the need to address evidence-based risks and treatment associated with COVID-19. Everyone involved should be flexible in exploring whether accommodation is possible, including alternative ways a person might continue to safely work, receive a service or live in congregate housing without being vaccinated. Organizations should make clear the reasons why proof of vaccination is needed in the circumstances. Organizations should only request and share medical information, including proof of vaccination, in a way that intrudes as little as possible on a person’s privacy, and does not go beyond what is necessary to ensure bona fide fitness to safely perform work, or protect people receiving services or living in congregate housing, and accommodate any individual needs. No one should experience harassment or other discriminatory treatment based on a Code ground because they are unable to receive a vaccine. Also, workers have rights and employers have obligations for workers’ health and safety under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Visit the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development website for more information, including how to contact the Ministry. 5. I do not believe in vaccinations (or masks and lockdowns). Does the Human Rights Code exempt me based on creed from COVID-19 requirements like providing proof of vaccination set by my employer or a service provider? Not all beliefs amount to a creed under the Code. The Code does not define creed. The OHRC’s Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed sets out guiding factors, based on case law, to help organizations, and ultimately tribunals and courts, make these determinations. This includes considering whether the belief is: Sincerely, freely and deeply held Integrally linked to a person’s identity, self-definition and fulfilment Part of a particular and comprehensive, overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and practices Addressing ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and the existence or non-existence of a Creator and/or a higher or different order of existence Connected in some way to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief The OHRC’s position is that a singular belief or personal preference against vaccinations or masks does not appear to be protected on the ground of creed under the Code. The OHRC is not aware of any tribunal or court decision that found a singular belief against vaccinations or masks amounted to a creed within the meaning of the Code. In Ataellahi v Lambton County (EMS), 2011 HRTO 1758 (CanLII), the HRTO held that in the absence of a sincerely held religious belief with a nexus to the divine or as a function of spiritual faith, the person could not assert that he was discriminated against based on creed, because the respondent had a requirement that employees be immunized and the person refused to be immunized. In Sharma v Toronto (City), 2020 HRTO 949 (CanLII), the HRTO found the person’s objection to wearing a mask does not fall within the meaning of “creed.” Also, not all creed-related needs must be accommodated in the Code-protected social areas, such as employment, facilities and services or housing. The requirement to wear a mask or prove vaccination may represent a reasonable and bona fide requirement for health and safety reasons, especially when serious risks to public health and safety are shown to exist like during a pandemic.
回复
推行疫苗接种证名,确实是大流行期间有效的,针对精准个体的优势手段。
回复
“如果是用脑力都无法完成的话,只靠体力加班也是完成不了的——这是我的一条格言。” 凯利·约翰逊,说明什么?针剂疫苗用思维常识推理就知道无法完成群体免疫!各国政府却体力上忙碌于针剂疫苗接种,可笑不可笑!?
回复
小编:1,如果患者住院,给医院和医生一年半时间,还没能治愈,医生应该诚实并有勇气承认失败,同理,新冠病毒疫情给各国政府一年半时间还没能控制,要诚实承认失败!政府和小编面对病毒疫情不要凭借“公权力”负隅顽抗! 2,反复提醒:针剂疫苗从来没有控制过疫情,所以要集中精力研发生产口服疫苗和口服药物抗御新冠疫情,不要在针剂疫苗上纠缠不清,否则就有“草菅人命嫌疑!” 3,疫情归疫情,公权力归公权力,不要“勾搭成奸”!
回复
个人自由不能对他人造成潜在危险。
回复
有任何一款新冠疫苗遵守了这些条例了吗? 如果有任何一款或都遵守了呢
回复
有意思吗?不对病毒溯源,疫苗毫无意义。其实不是自然就是人工,是来自自然的蝙蝠病毒的话,中间宿主在哪里?到现在还没找到,而且没见过自然产生的病毒这么牛掰的,变种越变越多越变越勐,病毒并不和人类共存,而是不搞死人类不罢休,太不自然了。如是实验室来的,那实验的目的是什么?为何要制造这种病毒,是要造福人类吗?
回复
打死了算交学费,政府药厂不赔
回复
x
x