Unvaxxed welfare recipients cut off benifits

[Badenoch]

Being vaccinated is not a requirement for all workers. So cutting a benefit that has no requirement in the work place is nonsense.

It's just about using the tools to force people into being vaccinated. That's all it is .

What about the people who's work forced them them into and can't receive the second like gm. Gm made the decision to only have an exemption if they can't get the second meaning the first fd them up.

Here are the EI conditions pertaining to COVID vaccinations.

COVID-19 vaccination
In most cases, if you lose or quit your job because you didn’t comply with your employer’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, you won’t be eligible for EI regular benefits. To determine if you’re eligible, we may contact you to obtain information such as:

• if your employer clearly communicated a mandatory COVID‑19 vaccination policy to you
• if you were informed that not complying with the policy would result in you losing your employment
• if applying the policy to you was reasonable within your workplace context
• if you have a valid reason for not complying with the policy and your employer didn’t provide you an exemption

We’ll use the facts provided by you and your employer to determine if you’re entitled to benefits.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/be...igibility.html

[MikePal]

Here are the EI conditions pertaining to COVID vaccinations.

That was countered by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) in a letter to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion:

I am writing on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) regarding comments you have made in the media and information on the Employment Insurance (EI) website about eligibility for EI. As you know, the position stated is that if an individual is terminated for failing to comply with an employer’s vaccination mandate, the individual will not be considered eligible for employment benefits. In effect, a refusal to be vaccinated, or to disclose one’s vaccination status to an employer, is treated as misconduct. In our view, this policy is wrong-headed, counter-productive, and may well conflict with the government’s constitutional and human rights obligations. We strongly urge you to reconsider this position.

There is a point at which encouragement and incentives become de facto coercion. In our view, denying employment insurance benefits to individuals who have lost their job rather than comply with a vaccine mandate crosses this line. Further, since poverty is one of the key social determinants of health, such an approach may well be counter-productive from a public health perspective. Finally, the individual circumstances of those who may be denied EI as a result of this policy may give rise to Charter or human rights claims. We strongly urge you to reconsider your government’s approach to this issue. We look forward to your reply.

https://ccla.org/fundamental-freedom...ent-insurance/

[GloHole]

ACHTUNG!! PAPERS!! Show us ze papers. All that's missing is the yellow star sewn onto clothing. This insanity must be stopped. It's going way too far.

Amen!
269592164_10166220943875494_470614804696880271_n.jpg

[FirewodGuy]

Hey Badenoch, did you know that there is aborted fetal tissue in this vaccine and others, according to the NIH website? I bet not. Step out of the Stockholm syndrome

[Badenoch]

That was countered by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) in a letter to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion:
https://ccla.org/fundamental-freedom...ent-insurance/

Oh my, a threatening letter from the CCLA. I'm sure the government is quaking in its boots. The CCLA letter was not accompanied by a court action which makes it hot air and empty threats.

Hey Badenoch, did you know that there is aborted fetal tissue in this vaccine and others, according to the NIH website? I bet not. Step out of the Stockholm syndrome

Yes, I did know that and I don't care. Incidentally, the Pope doesn't care either.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...icovid_en.html

In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

[MikePal]

Oh my, a threatening letter from the CCLA. I'm sure the government is quaking in its boots. The CCLA letter was not accompanied by a court action which makes it hot air and empty threats.

Did the Minister kick anyone off EI ??

[MikePal]

Yes, I did know that and I don't care.

That is also not true...they were not used in the mRNA vaccines

Fetal cell lines were not used to make the Moderna (Spikevax) and Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. However, the cell lines were used in the very early stages of research and development of these vaccines to test 'proof of concept’ (to test that the vaccines could work).

The AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria) vaccine uses the HEK 293 fetal cell line, and the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine uses the PER.C6 fetal cell line. However, the vaccines themselves do not contain fetal cells or tissue. The purification process removes nearly all the cell components so that only trace amounts of DNA and protein may be present in the vaccine.

[Gilroy]

That is also not true...they were not used in the mRNA vaccines

Firewoodguy "
Hey Badenoch, did you know that there is aborted fetal tissue in this vaccine and others, according to the NIH website? I bet not. Step out of the Stockholm syndrome


You conspiracy guys need to keep your stories straight.

[FirewodGuy]

Correction: fetal cell lines, not tissue derived from abortions and cultivated from abortions in the 60s
I'm sure many will say that cell lines grown in the past is immensely different than recent tissue to try to diminish the argument
The info in the below link matches up with the website I mentioned previously
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N2LU1T9

[FirewodGuy]

Correction: fetal cell lines, not tissue derived from abortions and cultivated from abortions in the 60s
I'm sure many will say that cell lines grown in the past is immensely different than recent tissue to try to diminish the argument
The info in the below link matches up with the website I mentioned previously
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N2LU1T9