Compulsory vaccination: no judge would go against it

To great ills, great remedies! And the law allows the government to use this remedy. For mee Jean-Paul Boily no judge would go against a government decree which would impose compulsory vaccination. He asks himself: why wait?

It is becoming more and more obvious that compulsory vaccination is a must that the Legault government will necessarily have to adopt in order to improve and maximize the chances of putting an end to this pandemic, according to lawyer Me Jean-Paul Boily.

“We are there, it is the only way to come to the end of this pandemic by forcing the recalcitrant, who have no reasonable excuse, to be vaccinated.”

In this regard, the Public Health Act allows the government to decree vaccination as compulsory, and even to force refractories to be vaccinated.

“In this specific case, the law has teeth and even allows that we can proceed via a denunciation made to a judge, has a form of arrest of the unvaccinated to be brought to a vaccination center and to be vaccinated. force, just as it can be done for a mentally challenged person via a court order to be forcibly treated for mental disorder, ”says Me Boily.

  • You can listen to M’s interviewe Jean-Paul Boily on this subject below:

According to him on the other hand, although the law allows it, in spite of a compulsory vaccination potentially decreed by the government, one should not attend scenes where the police enter people following an order of a judge to force them to withdraw. have them brought to a vaccination center for vaccination.

It is more likely and less damaging for our society, which should not become a police state, that the government operates with tickets that would punish people who do not get vaccinated. A bit like the curfew. Many people decide not to go out after 10 p.m. for fear of getting a $ 1,500 ticket. This fear could lead many people to decide to be voluntarily vaccinated, just like requiring a health passport to obtain alcohol or enter the SQDC as of January 18.

Me Boily is categorical: “Let it be said, the charters of human rights can never go against a provision which aims to protect the general public from a pandemic which has reached its end. its fifth wave and which never ceases to finish. “

Indeed, the restrictions on rights and freedoms and certain obligations that we have, whether in terms of road safety (wearing of a seat belt, speed limit, baby seat, etc.) are examples among many others. that security and the general interest must take precedence over individual rights, no offense to those who have no reasonable reason not to be vaccinated, charters or not.

It is certain, however, that when we talk about the forced inoculation of a vaccine we feel further in the debate of rights and freedoms than when we talk about the rules imposed on the road, but all the same, the courts would allow probably this attack, given the necessity and the highly dangerous situation of the fifth wave for our health system.

No one would want to have to decide who is going to live and who is at risk of dying, hence the imminence of compulsory vaccination. We must not forget the load shedding. Yes, there are real victims because of the load shedding in hospitals! Having to postpone operations is clearly a danger for people with a health condition that can worsen. Think of a person who has to be operated on for cancer and the operation is delayed … the chances of cures may decrease because of the delay …

Here are excerpts from the public health law that authorizes the government to make the vaccine mandatory:

123. During the state of health emergency, despite any provision to the contrary, the government or the minister, if authorized, may, without delay and without formality, to protect the health of the population:

1 ° order compulsory vaccination of the entire population […]

126. If a person fails to submit to vaccination […] any judge of the Court of Quebec […] may order him to submit to it.

The judge may also, if he has serious grounds for believing that this person will not submit to it and if he is of the opinion that the protection of public health justifies it,


source site-64