Equality of Status

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: John Ames Birch <amesbirch403@gmail.com> Date: Fri., Oct. 15, 2021, 3:58 a.m. Subject: Equality of Status (Opinion) To: <justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca>, <chrystia.freeland@parl.gc.ca>, <dujarric@un.org>, <antonio.ferrari@un.org>, <anthony.rota.c1@parl.gc.ca>, <aclupreferences@aclu.org>, <actso@naacpnet.org>, <assistance@liberal.ca>, <america@aljazeera.net>, <askus@novascotia.ca>, <ASH@hhs.gov>, <AskIA@fema.dhs.gov>, <abumintalla@gmail.com>, <ABS-Amer@eagle.org>, <ABS-WorldHQ@eagle.org>, <ABSGreaterChina@eagle.org>, <admin@tesfanews.net>, <admin@zehabesha.com>, <administration@coloradosos.gov>, <adrienne.south@gov.ab.ca>, <brienne.prusak@newyork.msf.org>, <bcrowfoot@ammsa.com>, <bernard.choi@boeing.com>, <Bernadette.Jordan@parl.gc.ca>, <barbara.warren@disney.com>, <calgary@globalnews.ca>, <carly.ferguson@blackpress.ca>, <cspencer@postmedia.com>, <dir_enq@cso.gov.hk>, <drun@un.int>, <despacho@presidencia.gob.cu>, <david.muir@cfl.rr.com>, <David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>, <edmonton@globalnews.ca>, <eonline@bellmedia.ca>, <ecampaign@gop.com>, <fatima@caj.ca>, <foundation@usoc.org>, <FEMA-NIMS@fema.dhs.gov>, <feedback@arabnews.com>, <feedback@arsenal.co.uk>, <gov.pressoffice@alaska.gov>, <gladcanada.info@gmail.com>, <GlobalBarrie@globalnews.ca>, <GlobalOttawa@globalnews.ca>, <haqf@un.org>, <haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk>, <health@ctv.ca>, <health.minister@gov.ab.ca>, <info@ccla.org>, <info@rttv.ru>, <info@ap.org>, <info@abcfp.ca>, <info@ansi.org>, <info@bnn.com>, <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, <Erin.OToole@parl.gc.ca>, <annamie.paul@greenparty.ca>, <jacob.loesh@state.mn.us>, <jamie.l.ruiz@cbp.dhs.gov>, <jean-yves.duclos@parl.gc.ca>, <jeff_klein@dkcnews.com>, <kdundar@hdn.com.tr>, <km_ir@kindermorgan.com>, <krishana.polite@nc.gov>, Liz Sauvé <liz.sauve@telus.com>, <msnbctvinfo@nbcuni.com>, <mediarelations@aa.com>, <media@aircanada.ca>, <media@angusreid.org>, <newsonline@ctv.ca>, <newstips@globaltv.com>, <newschannel@ctv.ca>, <news@connexionfrance.com>, <news@skynews.com>, <news@thelocal.se>, <otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int>, <osd.pentagonpressbadges@mail.mil>, <premier@gov.ab.ca>, <premier@gov.nl.ca>, <premier@gov.bc.ca>, <palestine@un.int>, <paoquery@cdc.gov>, <Patty.Hajdu@parl.gc.ca>, <pitches@texastribune.org>, <report@aiusa.org>, <reportit@kxan.com>, <rapidresponse@we-worldwide.com>, <sena_fitzmaurice@comcast.com>, <sales@thecanadianpress.com>, <tips@thetexan.news>, <tonews@cbc.ca>, <themayor@calgary.ca>, <tesfanews@gmail.com>, <taiwannewseditor@gmail.com>, <taviv@international.gc.ca>, <ViewerContactCalgary@globalnews.ca>, <ViewerContactToronto@globalnews.ca>, <Vincent.A.Steves@abc.com>, <washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org>, <w5@ctv.ca>, <weekend@cbsnews.com>, <yves-francois.blanchet@parl.gc.ca>, <YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk>, <YDChin@rcclapac.com>, <pch.antiracism-antiracisme.pch@canada.ca>, <Robert.Plamondon@sen.parl.gc.ca>, <HeleneF.Fortin@sen.parl.gc.ca>, <sencom@sen.parl.gc.ca>, <hansard@ola.org>, <deepak.anand@pc.ola.org>, <JAndrew-QP@ndp.on.ca>, <JAndrew-CO@ndp.on.ca>, <tarmstrong-qp@ndp.on.ca>, <tarmstrong-co@ndp.on.ca>, <ted.arnott@pc.ola.org>, <ted.arnottco@pc.ola.org>, <IArthur-QP@ndp.on.ca>, <IArthur-CO@ndp.on.ca>, <rbaber-co@ola.org>, <rbaber@ola.org>, <aris.babikian@pc.ola.org>, <bob.bailey@pc.ola.org>, <bob.baileyco@pc.ola.org>, <toby.barrett@pc.ola.org>, <DBegum-QP@ndp.on.ca>, <DBegum-CO@ndp.on.ca>, <JBell-QP@ndp.on.ca>, <RBerns-McGown-QP@ndp.on.ca>, <peter.bethlenfalvy@pc.ola.org>, <gbisson@ndp.on.ca>, <sblais.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>, <will.bouma@pc.ola.org>, <GBourgouin-QP@ndp.on.ca>, <JBurch-QP@ndp.on.ca>

Hey Everyone, I am again writing to discuss this illegal vaccine passport system that fails to protect us and is essentially state enforced segregation and discrimination. I believe in vaccines and therefore I am not against vaccines. The Delta variant is circulating amongst vaccinated and unvaccinated people and the media is violating the law by providing misinformation. We know that vaccines do not stop the spread of viruses which is why many who take the flu shot still get sick. Vaccines temper the body so that we do not get seriously ill or die, they simply prepare the body to fight the pathogen. As such, given the Delta variant is still transmissible between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, its segregation under the guise of public health. Each and every doctor, news reporter and government official that tries to force people into a vaccine using a discriminatory system, is guilty of discrimination. Masks and vaccines are what will help us resolve this crisis and not segregating our people into groups with different rights. Long ago, there was a time of segregation in the west. A time where people of color and later Japanese individuals were segregated based on the color of their skin and their birthplace. We fought one another to stop segregation and even went to war with the world to stop it in Europe during the Jewish Genocide. This lesson has been paid in blood. Our ancestors stood against such evils to ensure that they never again repeat themselves. Today, this shadow looms over our world as human rights and human dignity take a back seat to peoples fears. We built our society upon the standards of democracy and common good, to create a nation and world that was better than what we were handed. You may think that it's not such a big deal to have our people separated into different groups that hold different rights, but it sets a dangerous precedent. It sets the stage for future violations of human rights as our bills of rights become paper and ink. Each time you violate human rights and human dignity you reduce the potential of our people. Human rights or "Living rights" and dignity are the forefront of our hearts and the compass by which we steer the collective. If we violate these rights we diminish the whole of our people and dishonour the memories of all who fought and died to bring us a better world. The same atrocities reappear as people now face unequal landscapes not for the color of their skin or their birthplace, but due to medical grounds. People are losing their jobs, businesses, paying more for goods and services, being denied medical care and facing hate and fear mongering from a supposedly neutral media. As such this program must be immediately removed and mask use and vaccine outreach programs must replace it. As follows are the statutes and now case law that prove this system is inherently discriminatory: Canada - Section 2 - (a) freedom of conscience and religion; This section indicates that everyone has the freedom of religion to practice their beliefs and customs. Many people are hesitant about the vaccine due to religious reasons and therefore the passport system also violates this provision in the Charter. Caselaw: R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., 1986 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 713 "The purpose of s. 2(a) is to ensure that society does not interfere with profoundly personal beliefs that govern one's perception of oneself, humankind, nature, and, in some cases, a higher or different order of being."

"A limit on freedom of religion which recognizes the freedom of some members of the group but not of other members of the same group cannot be reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society. The effect of the disparate treatment is that the religious freedom of some is respected by the legislation while the religious freedom of others continues to be violated. The Charter, when it protects group rights, protects the rights of all members of the group and not of just some members of the group because to do otherwise would introduce an invidious distinction into the group and sever the religious and cultural tie that binds them together." Given that this system does not protect us, this is also a violation of section 2(a) of the Charter. The only caveat that allows this to be infringed upon is if it's in the interests of public good. Given that the Delta Variant can still be caught and transmitted by vaccinated people this system is flawed.

Section 3 - Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. Given that mandatory vaccines are being proposed for public office this would be a violation of section 3 of the Charter. Caselaw: Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2003] 1 SCR 912 "Per McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.: While on its face, s. 3 grants only a right to vote and to run for office in elections, Charter analysis requires looking beyond the words of the section and adopting a broad and purposive approach. The purpose of s. 3 is effective representation. Section 3 should be understood with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process, rather than the election of a particular form of government. This right is participatory and adverts only to a right to participate in the electoral process. This definition ensures that s. 3 is not construed too narrowly and emphasizes the reasons why individual participation is important, including respect for diverse opinions and the capacity of individuals to enhance democracy. Full political debate ensures an open society benefiting from diverse opinions and a social policy sensitive to the needs and interests of a broad range of citizens. Participation in the electoral process has an intrinsic value independent of the outcome of elections. The right to run for office provides an opportunity to present ideas and opinions to the electorate and the right to vote provides an opportunity for citizens to express support for ideas and opinions. In a democracy, sovereign power resides in the people as a whole and each citizen must have a genuine opportunity to take part in the governance of the country through participation in the selection of elected representatives." Given that this right guarantees a citizen's participation in the electoral process including the right to hold office, this vaccine passport system clearly violates section 3 of the Charter. Section 6 - (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. Supporting Case Law: Black v. Law Society of Alberta, 1989 CanLII 132 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 591 This case deals with mobility rights province to province in dealings with lawyers and the law society. The case states: "A purposive approach to the Charter dictates a broad approach to mobility. Section 6(2) protects the right of a citizen (and of a permanent resident) to move about the country, to reside where he or she wishes and to pursue his or her livelihood without regard to provincial boundaries. The provinces may regulate these rights but, subject to ss. 1 and 6 of the Charter, cannot do so in terms of provincial boundaries. That would derogate from the inherent rights of the citizen to be treated equally in his or her capacity as a citizen throughout Canada. This approach is consistent with the rights traditionally attributed to the citizen and with the language of the Charter. As such, given this passport system limits mobility province to province based on vaccination status, it inherently violates section 6(2) of the Canadian Charter. Section 7 - Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Supporting Case Law: Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 This case deals with section 7 of the charter that deals with assisted suicide and its prohibition at that time. it states: "Insofar as they prohibit physician-assisted dying for competent adults who seek such assistance as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering, ss. 241(b) and 14 of the Criminal Code deprive these adults of their right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter. The right to life is engaged where the law or state action imposes death or an increased risk of death on a person, either directly or indirectly. Here, the prohibition deprives some individuals of life, as it has the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely, for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached the point where suffering was intolerable. The rights to liberty and security of the person, which deal with concerns about autonomy and quality of life, are also engaged. An individual’s response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy. The prohibition denies people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and thus trenches on their liberty. And by leaving them to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of the person" This statute states that the person has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and not to be denied thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Given that this passport system is causing people to be denied medical care it's a clear violation of Section 7 as this can indirectly lead to people's deaths. Medical care is a right for all living beings and we need to ensure that there will never again be a double standard of care. In the matter of the: Reference of the Government of Quebec concerning the constitutionality of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act enacted by Sections 1 to 7 of the Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination (S.C. 2017, c. 3) This case deals with employment and genetic discrimination and sections of the Genetic non-discrimination act that prohibits discrimination for genetic reasons and having to provide documentation for goods and services. This also states that there can be no differential treatment based on an arbitrary standard. [16] In employment matters, both the federal and the provincial governments have always favoured a nuanced approach to prohibit and prevent discrimination. Thus, differences in treatment based on certain prohibited grounds are deemed discriminatory, unless the distinction is based on a bona fide occupational requirement or is otherwise allowed by legislation.[10] This legislative approach is grounded in the very notion of what constitutes prohibited discrimination in employment, i.e. the differential treatment of an individual from another based on an arbitrary standard. When the treatment of an individual is not arbitrary, there is no discrimination. As Justice Abella wrote in Withler, equality is not about sameness and does not protect a right to identical treatment in every circumstance.[11] It all depends on the context. [20] Indeed, as aforementioned, sections 1 to 7 of the Act do not prohibit genetic discrimination. In fact, the prohibition of discrimination based on genetic characteristics appears only in sections 9 and 10 of the Act, which modify sections 2 and 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to include genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground of discrimination within the purview of matters falling under the legislative authority of Parliament. On the other hand, sections 1 to 7 of the Act prohibit requiring a genetic test or the disclosure or use of the results in the conclusion of a contract or in the provision of goods and services, except where consent is given. Section 8 of the Act amends the Canada Labour Code in the same manner, while providing the employee with a specific recourse in the case where he or she is sanctioned for refusing to undergo a genetic test at the request of the employer or for refusing to disclose the results of such a test or because of the results of the test.[15] It does not however prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics, which is left to be dealt with under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 12 - Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. R. v. Smith (Edward Dewey), 1987 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 1045

" A punishment will be cruel and unusual and violate s. 12 of the Charter if it has any one or more of the following characteristics: (1) The punishment is of such character or duration as to outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity; (2) The punishment goes beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, having regard to the legitimate purposes of punishment and the adequacy of possible alternatives; or (3) The punishment is arbitrarily imposed in the sense that it is not applied on a rational basis in accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards." Given that this system of segregation does not achieve the goal of protection it not only goes beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, but it also degrades human dignity. This system seeks to classify us into different groups with different rights and given the bloody and inhumane history of segregation, it is inherently cruel. Section 15 - (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Caselaw: Quebec (Attorney General) v. A, 2013 SCC 5, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61 the view that the individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society, equally deserving of concern, respect, and consideration. Given that this system creates a second class citizenship for unvaccinated individuals it is in clear violation of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Given that people are losing jobs, businesses and being denied medical care, this second class passport system is discriminatory. Federal Labour Standards: These are also being violated by the Vaccine passport system as people are losing their jobs over their vaccination status which is protected under the anti discrimination laws in relation to workplaces. I will now review the United States Provisions: The Bill or Rights - This document is the foundation of that great nation and the compass by which we right ourselves. This document guarantees freedoms and rights to all citizens regardless of distinction or difference. This document guarantees, life liberty and security of the person which is being denied to unvaccinated individuals each time they are refused medical care. These rights are guaranteed: The First Amendment: to express ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a group to protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. It also protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents the government from creating or favoring a religion. This provision guarantees the rights to religious beliefs and practices. Many are worried for religious reasons and therefore requiring a vaccine passport system is a violation of these rights. The Eighth Amendment ( Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. This prohibits cruel or unusual punishment and given that segregation nearly decimated our people, it's wrong. As such any further uses of a segretory system is illegal and immoral. Palovic V Weitzel "The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel or unusual punishment. To State a claim under the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiffs must establish that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Palkovic.....The Supreme court has instructed that deliberate indifference occurs when a prison official "Knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety". Given that this system is inherently discriminatory and clearly a system of segregation, they should have been aware of the possible dangers such a system would bring for unvaccinated individuals. As such this is a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment and therefore, the vaccine passport system must be removed. The American Medical Association Ethics Standards - This guarantees the rights of people to have access to medical care and human rights. Code of Medical Ethics overview | American Medical Association (ama-assn.org)

1. "A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights."

"A physician shall support access to medical care for all people." As such, given that people are being denied medical care due to their vaccination status, this is a clear violation of the medical ethics standards and the physician's duty of care. This also violates the Hippocratic oath as well as human decency. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - This document outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history". This is another piece of legislation that protects against discrimination in the workplace and in daily life. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 78 Stat. 253, as amended, prohibits two categories of employment prac-tices. It is unlawful for an employer: “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or" "(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)." Caselaw: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. ABERCROMBIE &AMP; FITCH STORES, INC.(2015) "Thus, the rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. For example, suppose that an employer thinks (though he does not know for certain) that a job applicant may be an orthodox Jew who will observe the Sabbath, and thus be unable to work on Saturdays. If the applicant actually requires an accommodation of that religious practice, and the employer's desire to avoid the prospective accommodation is a motivating factor in his decision, the employer violates Title VII." This states that they cannot make a person's religious beliefs or practices a factor in their hiring or employment. Given that businesses are using the vaccine passport system to deny people employment this would be a protected ground under religious rights. Therefore this is in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Bill of Rights. In summary, this vaccine passport system violates the very foundation of our society as it seeks to create a second class citizenship for unvaccinated individuals. Over our history we have witnessed the horrors of segregation and discrimination on the homefront and on the world stage. We have fought one another, fought for each other and waged entire wars to set right this great wrong. This system seeks to create new inequalities in the guise of public good. We have come far through the long night of our inhumanity and we cannot go back into darkness. We must become the light to show others the way out of that dark night and back to the dawn of better days. Together, through adversity we rise stronger than before and we must rise together to stand against this new dark night. Stay Safe, Stay Sanitized and Stay Supportive, John Ames Birch @johneames2