|
|
|
Covid travel restrictions
- Thread starter Iceman
- Start date
- Status
pfbmgd
Well-known member
You are raging with your answers . Who would you argue with when you are in arbitrary detention ? That is the problem with this . It violates the charter that people are detained without a hearing .
Detention by quarantine officer
- 28 (1) A quarantine officer may detain any traveller who
- (a) has refused to be disinfested or to undergo a health assessment;
- (b) has been required to undergo a medical examination under subsection 22(1);
- (c) has failed to comply with an order made under section 26;
- (d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
- (i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, and
- (ii) is capable of infecting other people;
- (e) has been arrested under section 27; or
- (f) has been arrested without a warrant under section 18.
also
Order to comply with treatment or measure
26 If a quarantine officer, after the medical examination of a traveller, has reasonable grounds to believe that the traveller has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, the quarantine officer may order the traveller to comply with treatment or any other measure for preventing the introduction and spread of the communicable disease.
@J_F you didn't quite get it all
the quarantine act does not give you due process (to it seems, i haven't read it all and i won't)
pfbmgd
Well-known member
That is why I said I am paraphrasing . That is how dictators work. They do it for the greater good . That is why we have the charter to prevent that . But JT and his government feel like they are above that .
J_F
Guest
what we're talking about here is Thought Crime
someone may break their quarantine so lock them up first?
nice pull:
(d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
let's setup outside grocery stores now and quarantine people that have been inside too long
they are a bigger community risk than travelers who already have to quarantine and are currently represent 1% of new infections
someone may break their quarantine so lock them up first?
nice pull:
(d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
- (i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, and
- (ii) is capable of infecting other people;
let's setup outside grocery stores now and quarantine people that have been inside too long
they are a bigger community risk than travelers who already have to quarantine and are currently represent 1% of new infections
I think anyone in power does that, tbh.
The problem I see is that is written in the affirmative. Statistically, only a few percent of people are positive. That seems really weak for "reasonable grounds to believe".
Edit:
Assuming you are asymptomatic. If you have even a single symptom that could be covid, it's pretty clear that you dont have a choice.
Last edited:
Problem the first is here was zero effort put in to assuring that tests at the far end were valid. Honestly, they are a distraction and completely useless in this whole process. If there was a standard in place (eg accredited collection sites and labs) that might be worth something. The only reasonable way to ensure that a person is swabbed and a valid test conducted is to do it where we have control over the process.
bingo.
so is it 'reasonable' for someone to say that the negative test being shown at the airport is really mickey mouse crap? probably.
where is the standard?
pfbmgd
Well-known member
The officer has to show his proof that he believes you have an infectious disease . How can he do that by just looking at you . In fact you are producing a test that says you don't have the virus . None of the people taken to hotels are being told they are being charged . They are just taken away to hotels . When you get charged then you can get a lawyer and have a hearing .
They are bypassing this section to hold people .
pfbmgd
Well-known member
That is why we have the charter to prevent that .
they aren't being charged, they are being detained under the quarantine act. the law is there, it doesn't require a charge.
and yet?
J_F
Guest
good points
maybe something should have worked out a year ago?
prior to 21,000 bodies?
I agree with @pfbmgd
this is political window dressing to distract from failings
surprised Canadians are generally falling for this
I thought we were smarter than to be fooled into the politics of division
the bug is still being tracked into LTC homes
doing nothing productive about that
but hey, let's put airlines out of business and grab headlines
because 1% of current new infections come from people that get off planes
maybe something should have worked out a year ago?
prior to 21,000 bodies?
I agree with @pfbmgd
this is political window dressing to distract from failings
surprised Canadians are generally falling for this
I thought we were smarter than to be fooled into the politics of division
the bug is still being tracked into LTC homes
doing nothing productive about that
but hey, let's put airlines out of business and grab headlines
because 1% of current new infections come from people that get off planes
Same as I said with psgdgsjdh above. Govt has failed on a scale we havent seen before. Travellers are a vector. A vector that has no benefit at all for the population and the most likely vector to quickly introduce variants. Just because govt isnt attacking all vectors doesnt mean they should ignore the one that catches your chosen activity.
- Status
|
|
|
|
|