6 ms·

It’s also the right thing to do. It’s disturbing to see how many here on HN are calling for violent/destructive solutions rather than the one that respects cit

It’s also the right thing to do. It’s disturbing to see how many here on HN are calling for violent/destructive solutions rather than the one that respects citizens rights.

throwaway6734 5y ago
I don't know what it's like in Canada, but in the US vaccine mandates are generally on strong legal ground
- cdot2 5y ago
  civil rights can't be violated on strong legal grounds?
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    How do you define a violation of rights?
    - effingwewt 5y ago
      I will assume good faith, here[1] is the definition. [1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-violation/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-viol...
      - throwaway6734 5y ago
        Which is decided by courts
- effingwewt 5y ago
  Oh you mean the mandates the Supreme Court just struck down?[1] I am vaccinated but I stand with my brothers and sisters who demand a choice. Had it been mandated and had I known then what I know now, I would have not taken it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    The supreme court struck down part of the mandate and were open to the idea of it being employment/situationally specific (e.g., nurses). There's also no pushback against vaccination requirements for school and universities, but I'm sure that will be coming soon
    - effingwewt 5y ago
      Now you are moving goalposts. 'strong legal ground' yet the Supreme Court disagreed with you. You can posit about the future all you want, it won't change the reality of the present. Now I no longer believe you are commenting in good faith, you are simply pushing an agenda.
      - throwaway6734 5y ago
        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ State level mandates are considered to be constitutional, it's the broad federal mandate without employment specialization that wasn't considered constitutional. This isn't moving goal posts but providing context.
  - EForEndeavour 5y ago
    Genuinely curious about "had I known then what I know now." What recent information tipped your decision from getting the vaccine to refusing it?
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I don't see towing all the trucks to impound and arresting the drivers as "violent and destructive" (unless the drivers force it to be so). I especially don't see it as more violent and destructive than parking a bunch of trucks in places that massively disrupt traffic for weeks.
mrandish 5y ago
Sadly, armchair authoritarians often clamor for escalating punitive force on non-violent, non-criminal, peaceful protestors even when it's completely unnecessary and increases danger of physical harm for all involved.
Tiktaalik 5y ago
good grief. unvaccinated people are limited from going to restaurants and public gyms for public health and worker safety/health/rights reasons. These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Drink at home.
- mizzack 5y ago
  > Drink at home. Unless you're in Quebec, where the unvax don't have the right to buy alcohol for home consumption, either.
  - Tiktaalik 5y ago
    Very true and imo a questionable policy, though the bulk of protesters here in Ottawa are not from Quebec.
  - Txoko 5y ago
    ”How do I supply documentation to vindicate my posting relating to the Duncan Hines 1940 Travel Guide that highlighted travel accommodations that banned ”Restricted Clientele” which refers to Jews and Blacks?” When RESTRICTED CLIENTELE was searched for there were 456 results that were shown. The meaning of restricted clientele meant that Jews and Blacks were not welcome at those establishments which were scattered across the Country.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Does that mean that the government has the right to deny the population anything not spelled out as a right in the constitution? That sounds unlimited to me. Don't western governments usually have their responsibilities a bit more narrowly defined? Granted covid is an emergency. I guess the question is how big an emergency something needs to be before allowing the government to place restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Reasonable people differ on their opinion of the tradeoffs involved, especially as we move through time.
  - Tiktaalik 5y ago

It’s also the right thing to do. It’s disturbing to see how many here on HN are calling for violent/destructive solutions rather than the one that respects citizens rights.

throwaway6734 5y ago

I don't know what it's like in Canada, but in the US vaccine mandates are generally on strong legal ground

cdot2 5y ago
civil rights can't be violated on strong legal grounds?
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  How do you define a violation of rights?
  - effingwewt 5y ago
    I will assume good faith, here[1] is the definition. [1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-violation/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-viol...
    - throwaway6734 5y ago
      Which is decided by courts
effingwewt 5y ago
Oh you mean the mandates the Supreme Court just struck down?[1] I am vaccinated but I stand with my brothers and sisters who demand a choice. Had it been mandated and had I known then what I know now, I would have not taken it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  The supreme court struck down part of the mandate and were open to the idea of it being employment/situationally specific (e.g., nurses). There's also no pushback against vaccination requirements for school and universities, but I'm sure that will be coming soon
  - effingwewt 5y ago
    Now you are moving goalposts. 'strong legal ground' yet the Supreme Court disagreed with you. You can posit about the future all you want, it won't change the reality of the present. Now I no longer believe you are commenting in good faith, you are simply pushing an agenda.
    - throwaway6734 5y ago
      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ State level mandates are considered to be constitutional, it's the broad federal mandate without employment specialization that wasn't considered constitutional. This isn't moving goal posts but providing context.
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  Genuinely curious about "had I known then what I know now." What recent information tipped your decision from getting the vaccine to refusing it?

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I don't see towing all the trucks to impound and arresting the drivers as "violent and destructive" (unless the drivers force it to be so). I especially don't see it as more violent and destructive than parking a bunch of trucks in places that massively disrupt traffic for weeks.

mrandish 5y ago

Sadly, armchair authoritarians often clamor for escalating punitive force on non-violent, non-criminal, peaceful protestors even when it's completely unnecessary and increases danger of physical harm for all involved.

Tiktaalik 5y ago

good grief. unvaccinated people are limited from going to restaurants and public gyms for public health and worker safety/health/rights reasons. These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Drink at home.

mizzack 5y ago
> Drink at home. Unless you're in Quebec, where the unvax don't have the right to buy alcohol for home consumption, either.
- Tiktaalik 5y ago
  Very true and imo a questionable policy, though the bulk of protesters here in Ottawa are not from Quebec.
- Txoko 5y ago
  ”How do I supply documentation to vindicate my posting relating to the Duncan Hines 1940 Travel Guide that highlighted travel accommodations that banned ”Restricted Clientele” which refers to Jews and Blacks?” When RESTRICTED CLIENTELE was searched for there were 456 results that were shown. The meaning of restricted clientele meant that Jews and Blacks were not welcome at those establishments which were scattered across the Country.
mikem170 5y ago
> These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Does that mean that the government has the right to deny the population anything not spelled out as a right in the constitution? That sounds unlimited to me. Don't western governments usually have their responsibilities a bit more narrowly defined? Granted covid is an emergency. I guess the question is how big an emergency something needs to be before allowing the government to place restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Reasonable people differ on their opinion of the tradeoffs involved, especially as we move through time.
- Tiktaalik 5y ago