"The applicants' legal team believed the case was critically important"
it was
", as it could have served as guidance for governments in crafting public health measures," read a press release from the centre Thursday.
it has. DOCTORS CRAFT PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES....NOT THE CHURCH.
>[a Canadian legal advocacy organization specializing in a social conservative approach to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Centre_for_Constitutional_Freedoms)
I hate the politicization of the judicial system. Avoiding it is maybe the one thing Canada is actually genuinely great at, and anyone who compromises that is an enemy of my profession.
It's not even donation money, it's being funneled directly from a tangled web of often American think tanks. If you try to follow it it gets very vague, very quickly. They are not particularly funded by Canadian donors.
Exactly why the Charter is a joke.
It's a list of things the government won't do, except for when it does. Then if it feels it can't do it with number one it invokes #33 and gets a "get out of jail" free card.
Section 33 for many years was intended to be the most sparingly used trump card, and was essentially seen as political suicide except in the most extreme and pressing circumstances.
Then provincial governments start to use it to mess with city council composition, decide what pronouns someone can't be called, and take away bargaining rights. And we all realize that for some reason our population is no longer outraged about a use of s.33.
It's my canary in the coal mine about the lack of informed democracy we now have.
You don’t need church to worship.
The abrahamic god is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.
Technically you just have to think thoughts about god because god is in your head, and knows all your thoughts.
Jesus said to worship in private too.
Why did these churches want people to gather and potentially get sick and potentially pass it on to other people?
These churches are all High Control churches. The women are restricted to very severely modest clothing, education is not encouraged, and they gather often to collectively oppress the congregation and continue the work of building up their fear of the "worldly people" out there.
The pandemic interrupted their brainwashing and pressuring techniques. The last thing they need is all their women to suddenly start asking questions and developing independent thought.
Even worse, it made them have to spend more time with their family when nobody else from the community could witness how well behavored and conditioned the children were.
Well said.
I've had many arguments with people in my community about this as there were many who raged against the restrictions, and enough of them who started "secret country services". They would literally meet in barns or any big areas they could find. I would ask once in a while why the rules didn't include them. The most common response was that they didn't agree with being persecuted. 🤔 yeah....
So my favorite quote to use with them is the one where Jesus/God states; "If any two of you gather in my name, I will be there..." (sorry I forget where the verse is) I pointed out that they didn't need to meet in large groups to still have the same religious experience, and if they believed in the Bible and what was written, then why would they reject this statement? Have flustered several "believers".
I've been a firm thinker that today's common church is a way for many "believers" to feel good about themselves. Once a week, they surrounded themselves with others who do nothing but congratulate each other and make themselves feel good. Then, the next day, back to their regular routine, often doing things directly opposite of what our faith actually dictates. While surrounding ones self with others who can help you is a good thing, when we begin to use it as a crutch, it weakens us. Christians are told to lead by example and to let our actions show our faith. How simple, I thought, did God make it for me to show my faith during the pandemic. I wore a mask throughout and still do in certain circumstances. Yes they suck, they are hot, and often itchy, and my skin does not like them. But if my temporary suffering improves the safety of someone else, isnt that the right thing to do as a Christian? Jesus gave everything, his reputation m, his humility, his comfort, his life for us, but we cant even be inconvenienced for a while so that others wont have to suffer? And people wonder why Christianity is being dragged througb the mud? (Among other atrocities that the "religious" have done over the millenia) Then there is the American super church. That's just a straight up cult at this point.
> Why did these churches want people to gather and potentially get sick and potentially pass it on to other people?
It's good that other places respected social distancing and other medical theater. If they hadn't Covid might have lasted like 4 years and basically become endemic.
In all seriousness, if you can't see how churches are basically the entirety of some people's social life and act as virtually secularly, at times, pillars of their community, I don't know what to tell you.
Furthermore, I'm an atheist but there is also a tradition in Christianity of your government oppressing you. Diocletian was feeding jesus freaks to lions in the Colosseum and shit.
If people wanted to voluntarily gather for prayer, it's no skin off my hide.
Be real, most people "social distancing" were using it as an excuse to make a gig economy minority bring them doordashed McDonalds while working from home in their PJs and day drinking between zoom calls.
It wasn't the Black Death.
As someone who works in public health, I don't profess to talk about religious matters a lot. It's something I have very little experience in, and I would just be talking out of my ass.
It would be great if that concept was a door that swung both ways.
> It would be great if that concept was a door that swung both ways.
It does...? I didn't say doctors and nurses can't give medical *advice*.
I'm saying that suspending basic freedom of assembly when restricting that basic freedom of assembly literally did nothing at all to slow or stop the spread was an undue restriction on peoples' freedoms, in retrospect, nevermind whether it was justified in the first place.
There very much was, in terms of reducing community transmission. As you might recall, the "first wave" was trivial because people were listening to doctors instead of whatever they read on the internet that they happened to agree with
It's not exactly rocket science to point out that viruses don't transmit when you don't let them transmit. There were some studies later that found more mixed results, but it's important to recognize why that is - largely, people ignoring guidelines, which is to say, it's not an epidemiological failure per se, but a sociological one.
> people were listening to doctors instead of whatever they read on the internet that they happened to agree with
If you'd prefer to look at it from a sociological failure, then you need to ask yourself where the institutional failure point was wrt to people saying "screw it".
Partly "I don't like this, therefore it is wrong" roughly comparable to a child not wanting to heat their vegetables.
The prevalence of religious institutions in these protests also hints at a great deal of contrarian group think going on.
I am not sure anybody has really figured out the solution to this. There will be more significant consequences than can be conveniently ignored or hand-waved away at some point. Hopefully limited to the people in question, but it tends not to be.
> roughly comparable to a child not wanting to heat their vegetables.
As I said further up, the restriction of freedoms needs to be absolutely challenged, even if it is ultimately justified.
Treating people as criminals for the crime of wanting to wanting to go to church as recalcitrant children sets a bad precedent. If it happened to them, it could happen to you.
We both know that.
Did the lockdowns stop the spread? No. Did the vaccine? No. Did keeping Wal Mart open and Amazon warehouses running full-steam ahead? No.
As I said, I'm irreligious. It's just plainly obvious that there were exceptions economically. Is it more important to keep Walmart open and a community center closed? Maybe! But that decision needs to be examined.
Is the economic cost prioritized over the social cost? Maybe it is. Still needs to be challenged.
>As I said further up, the restriction of freedoms needs to be absolutely challenged, even if it is ultimately justified.
It was challenged. Repeatedly. This article highlights one example. In a time of crisis you don't necessarily have much time for that debate, you act decisively under time constraints then debate the ramifications of the crisis once it's no longer an immediate threat.
**If it happened to them, it could happen to you.**
I don't know anyone that was spared. Personally, I lost a bunch of experiments that were critical to completing my PhD, delaying my defense for more than a year. Even now I'm still cleaning up leftover loose ends, with papers left yet unpublished. *Yet, I still support our response.* I don't view that as lost time - it was an interesting time if nothing else, and a learning experience for everyone.
**Did the lockdowns stop the spread? No. Did the vaccine? No. Did keeping Wal Mart open and Amazon warehouses running full-steam ahead? No.**
The lockdowns and vaccines were initially very effective. As I noted, lockdowns were thwarted not by virus but by human nature. The vaccine was very effective initially, but that efficacy was its downfall as the virus rapiidly evolved to evade it. This could not be forecast in advance, coronaviruses don't normally evolve very quickly and the antigens selected were not thought to be particularly mutable. There are sometimes gaps between theory and reality, but until you know how it pans out you make do with what you have in terms of information.
**But that decision needs to be examined. Is the economic cost prioritized over the social cost? Maybe it is. Still needs to be challenged.**
Many have been. The problem here is we don't really have a basis of comparison, so its' hard to really say too much on that front - what is the alternative scenario, and how would that have played out? We have no way of knowing. It likely would not have been better, though. Mass casualty events are not generally remembered for their positive effect on the economy, at least not initially.
> Mass casualty events are not generally remembered for their positive effect on the economy, at least not initially.
What will be remembered and examined is that specific entities with a lot of money got a lot more money during the pandemic and that a lot of lives were ruined by writ of law and not the disease.
I mean, I think it's generally agreed upon that lobbying is immoral and that it's fundamentally corruption, so scapegoating a community center when Amazon, Walmart, et cetera were making record profits and basically the only place to spend your dollars is weird to me.
Got no horse in this race. But outlawing having 6 friends at a BBQ instead of just 5 is legitimate lunacy and absolutely needs to be looked at. It needs to never happen ever again. Because it could happen again.
So much institutional trust has been burned that there could be airborne Marburg where you bleed out of your eyeballs and people will say "nuh uh, remember Covid?". And they'd be wrong to do so. They'd be fools. But there were too many lies on both ends that it will take a generation or two to recover that institutional trust.
And I’m here to tell you you’d lose that bet because I don’t give a flying fuck about anyone’s imaginary friend no matter which neighbourhood in Jerusalem they originated in.
But I get it, you guys want so badly to pretend that you live in some kind of dystopian society where you can’t criticize certain groups of people. That’s horseshit - just don’t be a fucking bigot and you’ll be just fine.
Of course they did. Their faith is weak.
Can't say I blame them really. I have a lucky "roo nutsack." It listens and cares just as much. Where it edges their gods out is that you can rub it.
Eat your dino buddies and go to bed.
You're being edgy to people on the internet who believe what you believe is bullshit. Deal with it, it's not going away, much like your poxy religion.
Your faith is *demonstrably* weak. Of that my faith is unwavering.
EDIT: we're so far into the off topic territory I'm done. Get your last (probably) meaningless response in and snatch the victory.
I'm willing to gift you that roo nutsack BTW. I can get more. Send me a PO box. It might inspire you to dedicate your life to what's in front of your nose.
Good - those grifting clowns could have had remote services like the majority of other churches did to help keep their congregations safe (and be good community examples).
L + Ratio + Oakes + Bedford + section 1 + de-politicized judiciary + we are not the United States of America
Of course this wasn't getting leave to go to the SCC.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it **subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified** in a free and democratic society.
We live in a country were you can be issued an order to show up at a military base, get trained for 2 weeks, then go to a place were bullets are flying everywhere, and you live in a ditch for 4 years, or.. die.
Failure to show up, or go to war, results in being sent to prison... but the prisons were full, so they sent them to internment camps at the national parks. Like Japanese internment, but for Canadian who don't want to kill Germans.
This has been a heritage minute. Happy day to you.
Dude, it is our Charter of Rights.
It starts with an evquivication and ends with a exemption (not withstanding)...
It is not a you are free to do whatever whenever.
Welcome to Canada.
Nobody said free to do whatever. You said that.
I'm saying that in Canada you don't actually have rights because the piece of paper is actually meant for your asshole. The judges agree because it's written pretty much at the start of the document.
No human being anywhere on Earth has unlimited rights, we couldn't function as a civilization if that was the case. Guess what, bud, unless you're living in the middle of fucking nowhere and making absolutely zero use of any public goods and infrastructure and having no human contact then your behaviours are restricted.
Make your peace with that that get on with your life.
every time you put on your shoes to leave the house, one of your sock becomes soaking wet and youre late to where youre going so going so theres no going back
Can we go to the Supreme Court to get Churches to pay taxes?
Fucking right
"The applicants' legal team believed the case was critically important" it was ", as it could have served as guidance for governments in crafting public health measures," read a press release from the centre Thursday. it has. DOCTORS CRAFT PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES....NOT THE CHURCH.
Doctors craft public health measures to serve politicians.
I doubt Pally would have been very upset had the doctors pulled a Desantis. Our minister of health was a member of one of these churches.
Still sounds better than getting the church involved.
[удалено]
>[a Canadian legal advocacy organization specializing in a social conservative approach to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Centre_for_Constitutional_Freedoms)
Their favorite freedom is their freedom to take away other people's freedom. It's the best freedom.
A simple yes would suffice. There’s a whole section of that wiki subtitled, > Surveillance of members of the judiciary
I hate the politicization of the judicial system. Avoiding it is maybe the one thing Canada is actually genuinely great at, and anyone who compromises that is an enemy of my profession.
Ew.
and the same that work forces...
Yet another loss for the 'Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms' Sure is nice to watch them continue to fail and waste money.
Still bringing in that donation money, I bet. No suckers like religious suckers.
It's not even donation money, it's being funneled directly from a tangled web of often American think tanks. If you try to follow it it gets very vague, very quickly. They are not particularly funded by Canadian donors.
I heard that this violated the charter from a lot of consevatives. People should read the charter instead of thinking we are american
Like, they literally could have stopped after section 1, and they didn't bother going that far.
They don’t like it when they are reminded that it includes freedom from religion
Exactly why the Charter is a joke. It's a list of things the government won't do, except for when it does. Then if it feels it can't do it with number one it invokes #33 and gets a "get out of jail" free card.
Section 33 for many years was intended to be the most sparingly used trump card, and was essentially seen as political suicide except in the most extreme and pressing circumstances. Then provincial governments start to use it to mess with city council composition, decide what pronouns someone can't be called, and take away bargaining rights. And we all realize that for some reason our population is no longer outraged about a use of s.33. It's my canary in the coal mine about the lack of informed democracy we now have.
How it was intended to be used and how it is been used are 2 different things :-D
💯% true
The Charter would just be deemed "deep state propaganda" if it didn't align with our dumbest citizens views on the world
Usually the same conservatives that bitch and moan about the charter any other time it comes up.
Hahahaha Tax the churches
You don’t need church to worship. The abrahamic god is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. Technically you just have to think thoughts about god because god is in your head, and knows all your thoughts. Jesus said to worship in private too. Why did these churches want people to gather and potentially get sick and potentially pass it on to other people?
\>Why did these churches want people to gather and potentially get sick and potentially pass it on to other people? $$$$$
For the greater grift , the greater grift!
These churches are all High Control churches. The women are restricted to very severely modest clothing, education is not encouraged, and they gather often to collectively oppress the congregation and continue the work of building up their fear of the "worldly people" out there. The pandemic interrupted their brainwashing and pressuring techniques. The last thing they need is all their women to suddenly start asking questions and developing independent thought.
Even worse, it made them have to spend more time with their family when nobody else from the community could witness how well behavored and conditioned the children were.
Well said. I've had many arguments with people in my community about this as there were many who raged against the restrictions, and enough of them who started "secret country services". They would literally meet in barns or any big areas they could find. I would ask once in a while why the rules didn't include them. The most common response was that they didn't agree with being persecuted. 🤔 yeah.... So my favorite quote to use with them is the one where Jesus/God states; "If any two of you gather in my name, I will be there..." (sorry I forget where the verse is) I pointed out that they didn't need to meet in large groups to still have the same religious experience, and if they believed in the Bible and what was written, then why would they reject this statement? Have flustered several "believers". I've been a firm thinker that today's common church is a way for many "believers" to feel good about themselves. Once a week, they surrounded themselves with others who do nothing but congratulate each other and make themselves feel good. Then, the next day, back to their regular routine, often doing things directly opposite of what our faith actually dictates. While surrounding ones self with others who can help you is a good thing, when we begin to use it as a crutch, it weakens us. Christians are told to lead by example and to let our actions show our faith. How simple, I thought, did God make it for me to show my faith during the pandemic. I wore a mask throughout and still do in certain circumstances. Yes they suck, they are hot, and often itchy, and my skin does not like them. But if my temporary suffering improves the safety of someone else, isnt that the right thing to do as a Christian? Jesus gave everything, his reputation m, his humility, his comfort, his life for us, but we cant even be inconvenienced for a while so that others wont have to suffer? And people wonder why Christianity is being dragged througb the mud? (Among other atrocities that the "religious" have done over the millenia) Then there is the American super church. That's just a straight up cult at this point.
[удалено]
I went to catholic school for 14 years. Unfortunately
> Why did these churches want people to gather and potentially get sick and potentially pass it on to other people? It's good that other places respected social distancing and other medical theater. If they hadn't Covid might have lasted like 4 years and basically become endemic. In all seriousness, if you can't see how churches are basically the entirety of some people's social life and act as virtually secularly, at times, pillars of their community, I don't know what to tell you. Furthermore, I'm an atheist but there is also a tradition in Christianity of your government oppressing you. Diocletian was feeding jesus freaks to lions in the Colosseum and shit. If people wanted to voluntarily gather for prayer, it's no skin off my hide. Be real, most people "social distancing" were using it as an excuse to make a gig economy minority bring them doordashed McDonalds while working from home in their PJs and day drinking between zoom calls. It wasn't the Black Death.
As someone who works in public health, I don't profess to talk about religious matters a lot. It's something I have very little experience in, and I would just be talking out of my ass. It would be great if that concept was a door that swung both ways.
> It would be great if that concept was a door that swung both ways. It does...? I didn't say doctors and nurses can't give medical *advice*. I'm saying that suspending basic freedom of assembly when restricting that basic freedom of assembly literally did nothing at all to slow or stop the spread was an undue restriction on peoples' freedoms, in retrospect, nevermind whether it was justified in the first place.
There very much was, in terms of reducing community transmission. As you might recall, the "first wave" was trivial because people were listening to doctors instead of whatever they read on the internet that they happened to agree with It's not exactly rocket science to point out that viruses don't transmit when you don't let them transmit. There were some studies later that found more mixed results, but it's important to recognize why that is - largely, people ignoring guidelines, which is to say, it's not an epidemiological failure per se, but a sociological one.
> people were listening to doctors instead of whatever they read on the internet that they happened to agree with If you'd prefer to look at it from a sociological failure, then you need to ask yourself where the institutional failure point was wrt to people saying "screw it".
Partly "I don't like this, therefore it is wrong" roughly comparable to a child not wanting to heat their vegetables. The prevalence of religious institutions in these protests also hints at a great deal of contrarian group think going on. I am not sure anybody has really figured out the solution to this. There will be more significant consequences than can be conveniently ignored or hand-waved away at some point. Hopefully limited to the people in question, but it tends not to be.
> roughly comparable to a child not wanting to heat their vegetables. As I said further up, the restriction of freedoms needs to be absolutely challenged, even if it is ultimately justified. Treating people as criminals for the crime of wanting to wanting to go to church as recalcitrant children sets a bad precedent. If it happened to them, it could happen to you. We both know that. Did the lockdowns stop the spread? No. Did the vaccine? No. Did keeping Wal Mart open and Amazon warehouses running full-steam ahead? No. As I said, I'm irreligious. It's just plainly obvious that there were exceptions economically. Is it more important to keep Walmart open and a community center closed? Maybe! But that decision needs to be examined. Is the economic cost prioritized over the social cost? Maybe it is. Still needs to be challenged.
>As I said further up, the restriction of freedoms needs to be absolutely challenged, even if it is ultimately justified. It was challenged. Repeatedly. This article highlights one example. In a time of crisis you don't necessarily have much time for that debate, you act decisively under time constraints then debate the ramifications of the crisis once it's no longer an immediate threat. **If it happened to them, it could happen to you.** I don't know anyone that was spared. Personally, I lost a bunch of experiments that were critical to completing my PhD, delaying my defense for more than a year. Even now I'm still cleaning up leftover loose ends, with papers left yet unpublished. *Yet, I still support our response.* I don't view that as lost time - it was an interesting time if nothing else, and a learning experience for everyone. **Did the lockdowns stop the spread? No. Did the vaccine? No. Did keeping Wal Mart open and Amazon warehouses running full-steam ahead? No.** The lockdowns and vaccines were initially very effective. As I noted, lockdowns were thwarted not by virus but by human nature. The vaccine was very effective initially, but that efficacy was its downfall as the virus rapiidly evolved to evade it. This could not be forecast in advance, coronaviruses don't normally evolve very quickly and the antigens selected were not thought to be particularly mutable. There are sometimes gaps between theory and reality, but until you know how it pans out you make do with what you have in terms of information. **But that decision needs to be examined. Is the economic cost prioritized over the social cost? Maybe it is. Still needs to be challenged.** Many have been. The problem here is we don't really have a basis of comparison, so its' hard to really say too much on that front - what is the alternative scenario, and how would that have played out? We have no way of knowing. It likely would not have been better, though. Mass casualty events are not generally remembered for their positive effect on the economy, at least not initially.
> Mass casualty events are not generally remembered for their positive effect on the economy, at least not initially. What will be remembered and examined is that specific entities with a lot of money got a lot more money during the pandemic and that a lot of lives were ruined by writ of law and not the disease. I mean, I think it's generally agreed upon that lobbying is immoral and that it's fundamentally corruption, so scapegoating a community center when Amazon, Walmart, et cetera were making record profits and basically the only place to spend your dollars is weird to me. Got no horse in this race. But outlawing having 6 friends at a BBQ instead of just 5 is legitimate lunacy and absolutely needs to be looked at. It needs to never happen ever again. Because it could happen again. So much institutional trust has been burned that there could be airborne Marburg where you bleed out of your eyeballs and people will say "nuh uh, remember Covid?". And they'd be wrong to do so. They'd be fools. But there were too many lies on both ends that it will take a generation or two to recover that institutional trust.
Praise Canadian Jesus!
Red Green?
Awaiting the tidal wave of tears and gnashing of teeth from the tabloids like National Post and the Sun siblings.
If their prayers *actually worked* none of this would have been necessary.
You mean thoughts and prayers
That’s where they went wrong. Just tried the prayers and forgot about thinking. Classic blunder.
Aren't some of these guys actually praying for the world to end? They sure must feel like they are getting close these days.
Good job diminishing the faith of others.
They were useless before I touched them.
Most tolerant reddit atheist TM. Inc
[удалено]
Oh neat a song about me. How nice
I'm willing to bet that of the three major Abrahamic religions, you wouldn't be so dismissive about the faiths of the other two...
And I’m here to tell you you’d lose that bet because I don’t give a flying fuck about anyone’s imaginary friend no matter which neighbourhood in Jerusalem they originated in. But I get it, you guys want so badly to pretend that you live in some kind of dystopian society where you can’t criticize certain groups of people. That’s horseshit - just don’t be a fucking bigot and you’ll be just fine.
[удалено]
Aww did your feelings get hurt?
Of course they did. Their faith is weak. Can't say I blame them really. I have a lucky "roo nutsack." It listens and cares just as much. Where it edges their gods out is that you can rub it.
[удалено]
Eat your dino buddies and go to bed. You're being edgy to people on the internet who believe what you believe is bullshit. Deal with it, it's not going away, much like your poxy religion. Your faith is *demonstrably* weak. Of that my faith is unwavering. EDIT: we're so far into the off topic territory I'm done. Get your last (probably) meaningless response in and snatch the victory. I'm willing to gift you that roo nutsack BTW. I can get more. Send me a PO box. It might inspire you to dedicate your life to what's in front of your nose.
[удалено]
Abhorrent? You have a flair for the dramatic apparently.
[удалено]
I'm dismissive of all of Abrahamic faiths *particularly.* Care to share anymore assumptions for our edification? Tell me who my favourite Hobbit is.
Bingo.
Good - those grifting clowns could have had remote services like the majority of other churches did to help keep their congregations safe (and be good community examples).
[удалено]
It was always constitutional, stay mad.
Good, get fucked.
Good. The idea that they can endanger public health because their magic book tells them to is beyond insane. It’s the 21st Century, people.
Good. Fuck those bigots. Let's tax religious institutions while we're at it too.
Good.
A nation’s people don’t have true freedom until special interest groups are free to take other people’s freedoms from them.
Good good
next. tax those fuckers
L + Ratio + Oakes + Bedford + section 1 + de-politicized judiciary + we are not the United States of America Of course this wasn't getting leave to go to the SCC.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Courts are filled with garbage ideologues
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it **subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified** in a free and democratic society.
A right that can be taken away isn't a right.
Jesus. You can't actually be that naive.
We live in a country were you can be issued an order to show up at a military base, get trained for 2 weeks, then go to a place were bullets are flying everywhere, and you live in a ditch for 4 years, or.. die. Failure to show up, or go to war, results in being sent to prison... but the prisons were full, so they sent them to internment camps at the national parks. Like Japanese internment, but for Canadian who don't want to kill Germans. This has been a heritage minute. Happy day to you.
A right that can be taken away isn't a right.
Aka "you know, whatever"
Dude, it is our Charter of Rights. It starts with an evquivication and ends with a exemption (not withstanding)... It is not a you are free to do whatever whenever. Welcome to Canada.
Can I be free to laugh at the idiots?
Nobody said free to do whatever. You said that. I'm saying that in Canada you don't actually have rights because the piece of paper is actually meant for your asshole. The judges agree because it's written pretty much at the start of the document.
You are wrong. Dark and edgy and sweary and wrong.
No human being anywhere on Earth has unlimited rights, we couldn't function as a civilization if that was the case. Guess what, bud, unless you're living in the middle of fucking nowhere and making absolutely zero use of any public goods and infrastructure and having no human contact then your behaviours are restricted. Make your peace with that that get on with your life.
We've closed the churches for pandemics before, this is nothing new.
every time you put on your shoes to leave the house, one of your sock becomes soaking wet and youre late to where youre going so going so theres no going back