The British Columbia Court of Appeal set the stage for an intriguing legal discourse on the contentious vaccine passport mandate this month. This came in response to an appeal lodged against its initial dismissal by Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson in September. The disconnect at the heart of this debate revolves around the charge of discrimination embedded in the province’s controversial vaccination passport mandate.
Related:Â How vaccine passports are crushing freedom, privacy, and civil liberties
The dissidents, among them the Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry, hold the view that the prevailing vaccine passport system, an attack on civil liberties, is unconstitutional.
As reported by Rebel News, the appeal, lodged by individuals and advocacy groups alike, is symptomatic of an increasing concern over possible governmental surveillance and infringement on personal privacy rights. The justice panel, consisting of Justice Abriuox, Justice Groberman and Justice Skolrood, is entrusted with oversight of this delicate matter.
Among the groups championing this cause are the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Public Policy (CSASPP).
Government attorneys attempted to undermine these appeals on the grounds that the vaccination mandate was no longer enforced. However, the court chose to allow these appeals to proceed. The appeal panel, recognizing the importance of giving this matter due consideration, stated, “There is something to be gained by having this court consider the issue and provide some guidance.”
Unfortunately, not all parties emerged unscathed from the initial courtroom proceedings. The court, in a ruling, excluded CSASPP as a party while allowing Kip Warner, its executive director, to continue. Additionally, Jeremy Maddock, a man from Victoria representing himself, was removed from the case, undermining the voice of the individual in this pressing debate.
The apex court’s scrutiny of the legality of B.C.’s vaccine passport scheme, notorious for its limiting exemptions, may not yield an outcome for months. This slow, yet crucial legal process marks another episode in the larger narrative of how governments worldwide are grappling with balancing disease control measures and citizen’s rights to privacy and to live free from overbearing surveillance.
