Your Rights to Decline Mandatory Covid Measures

[Jakezilla]

Go ahead and decline and if you get Covid i'm sure the healthcare system will decline to treat you as well...or at least they should!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So are we going to stop treating smokers with lung cancer? Fat people who have preventable diabetes? Those are the results of choices as well but much more harmful choices than standing up for your rights.

[Jakezilla]

Contrary to what some of you believe, this video is about is about understanding what your rights are under the charter. This is good information to know so we don't just blindly follow along with what the authorities tell us. There is a reason all the emergency order violation tickets are getting thrown out, they won't hold up under a court challenge.

As far as the lady Badenoch refers to that was jailed. There is a big difference between civil disobedience and being an hole. It appears that the "No more lockdowns" group are successfully stopping businesses from being fined through peaceful protest.

[gbk]

Go ahead and decline and if you get Covid i'm sure the healthcare system will decline to treat you as well...or at least they should!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Definitely they should-after all,they choose to be "unhealthy".

And then ,log their names in the WE WILL NOT TREAT YOU ,since YOU CHOOSE TO BE SICK alongside all the: alcoholics, narcos, DUI hurt drivers ,non health related obese,attemted suicide perpetrators..........one day,they may even come up with recommended vitamins,and if one is not taking them -they should also be listed as "bad citizens"..........the list is endless.

[MarkB]

So are we going to stop treating smokers with lung cancer? Fat people who have preventable diabetes? Those are the results of choices as well but much more harmful choices than standing up for your rights.

Well, the issue is that someone that has COVID may subject another person to COVID. A smoker cannot smoke in a shopping mall or any public place, due to the issues surrounding second hand smoke being inhaled by others ... so it's kind of the same thing ... they create rules where smoking isn't allowed in malls or public areas.

Treatment of illnesses on the other hand should not be withheld ... simply because we do not have the capacity to decide what is right and wrong ... it would be a disaster for anyone to attempt that.

I would say, people should do what they want, but they have NO right to expose others to danger (or even the risk of danger). So, when it comes to making choices, and for instance not taking a vaccine or not wearing a mask ... I don't think it's right for someone to then expose others to the risk of catching the virus.

[impact]

I would say, people should do what they want, but they have NO right to expose others to danger (or even the risk of danger). So, when it comes to making choices, and for instance not taking a vaccine or not wearing a mask ... I don't think it's right for someone to then expose others to the risk of catching the virus.

The vaccine is to protect your health and lessen the impact of the virus on you and you only. No one else. Once vaccinated it does not guarantee that a person will be infected again and become a carrier.
Influenza affects 1 billion people each and every year and has for decades. Nothing new.
If a person wishes to avoid each and every variants then they should stay at home and avoid all human contact.

Everyone else is free to enjoy life.

[410001661]

No different than when a cop asks for for my ID for an assumption.

[Jakezilla]

I would say, people should do what they want, but they have NO right to expose others to danger (or even the risk of danger). So, when it comes to making choices, and for instance not taking a vaccine or not wearing a mask ... I don't think it's right for someone to then expose others to the risk of catching the virus.

This statement doesn't make sense. You say people should do what they want and then basically say they shouldn't.

It's about freedom vs risk and what is reasonable. Who gets to determine what the real risk or danger is? The next question is who gets to determine what is acceptable and what isn't? What is the reasonable response. Is it reasonable that people can't go to work because of the perceived risk and danger of COVID? It is reasonable to destroy the economy and our children's future over the perceived risk and danger of COVID? Is it reasonable to make someone take an experimental vaccine because of the perceived risk and danger of COVID?

All I know is the people that have been making the determinations of acceptable risk so far are far from reasonable. This is why we need to understand our rights to decline mandatory COVID measures.

[onelessarrow]

So the decision by the Healthcare and Politicians to deliberately hide therapeutics, "killing thousands", garners some sort of respect or compliance? Give your heads a shake. Time to wake up and demand that this is enough. Either stand up and fight for what's right or get the Frig out of the way!!!

[MarkB]

The vaccine is to protect your health and lessen the impact of the virus on you and you only. No one else. Once vaccinated it does not guarantee that a person will be infected again and become a carrier.
Influenza affects 1 billion people each and every year and has for decades. Nothing new.
If a person wishes to avoid each and every variants then they should stay at home and avoid all human contact.

Everyone else is free to enjoy life.

The vaccine will also reduce or completely eliminate the symptoms of the disease, including prevention of coughing, running noses and sneezing ... which will reduce the prime mechanisms which spread the virus. So vaccination may in fact help reduce transmission simply due to that. I do agree that being vaccine does not mean you cannot carry and spread the virus ... and therefore masks and proper hygiene should continue to be practiced until sufficient heard immunity is established.

[MarkB]

This statement doesn't make sense. You say people should do what they want and then basically say they shouldn't.

It's about freedom vs risk and what is reasonable. Who gets to determine what the real risk or danger is? The next question is who gets to determine what is acceptable and what isn't? What is the reasonable response. Is it reasonable that people can't go to work because of the perceived risk and danger of COVID? It is reasonable to destroy the economy and our children's future over the perceived risk and danger of COVID? Is it reasonable to make someone take an experimental vaccine because of the perceived risk and danger of COVID?

All I know is the people that have been making the determinations of acceptable risk so far are far from reasonable. This is why we need to understand our rights to decline mandatory COVID measures.

Jake pick one ... you are free to get everyone sick because you don't want to follow rules. OR you are free not to follow the rules, but don't dare put anyone else at risk. WHAT gives someone the right to break the rules and get me sick in the process???? They DO NOT have that right. It's like saying ... I'm gonna get drunk and then get in a car ... because I don't care about the laws ... and oh, it's okay if I kill a few people while doing that. It's pure ABSURDITY to think that way.

If you don't want to get the vaccine or wear a mask, fine ... but then you'll be obligated to ensure you do not get others that are following the rules sick. Don't ask me how that gets implemented ... I don't know, I haven't thought about it ... but my point is, you have a duty to prevent others from getting sick. People that know their sick and do not use proper due diligence to prevent others from getting sick have been charged in the past (HIV transmission).