February 8, 2022

Dave Obee
Editor and Publisher
Victoria Times Colonist
dobee@timescolonist.com

Dear Mr. Obee:

Re: TC Coverage of our Letter to Lori Wanamaker, Head of the BC Public Service

This letter is in response to the article entitled “Unvaccinated public servants who face firing want mandate quashed” that appeared in the Victoria Times Colonist on February 8, 2022. As editor, there are a few comments as well as errors in the article we would like to bring to your attention.

First, we would like to clarify for your readers that the BCPS Employees for Freedom group includes both vaccinated and unvaccinated (i.e. vaccine-free) B.C. public servants. As such, the title of the article and several references throughout are not accurate when it states we are all “unvaccinated”. We would like to ask that the article be corrected to include reference to all of our members, including those who are vaccinated. No matter what one’s vaccination status is, we share equally profound concern for our rights to medical privacy and bodily autonomy, and are distressed by the manner in which these have been disregarded by our employer.

Second, we feel the Times Colonist missed an opportunity to provide its readers with further context on this story by not asking additional important questions when seeking comment from the BC Public Service Agency (PSA). For example, how many employees have sought medical, religious or political exemptions from the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy? How many of these exemption requests have been denied? How many have been approved? In addition, we are aware of a large number of unanticipated retirements and resignations in the months since the policy was announced on October 5, 2021. How many experienced B.C. public servants have left the 30,000 member workforce to avoid this vaccine mandate? We would be pleased if the Times Colonist were to seek a response from the PSA on this question.

Additionally, the PSA could have been probed further about their long-term plan for the policy. For example, when the vaccination requirement is no longer needed because COVID-19 has become endemic in the population, how will they manage those public servants who were terminated from their jobs? Will they be allowed to reapply in the future? Could they be reinstated? The B.C. government and Public Service have failed to provide a coherent explanation for their decision-making. Given other provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta are now currently dropping their vaccine passport requirements, we may assume this possibility is on the horizon in B.C. We believe this should be addressed immediately. Especially since the livelihoods of many hundreds of dedicated, professional public servants hang in the balance, and without whom government programs and services in British Columbia will continue to suffer.

Third, the article concludes with the latest daily statistics about the number of persons reported in hospital and intensive care for COVID-19. However, it does not indicate what percentage of these patients are vaccinated and what percentage are vaccine-free. Based on the latest data from the BC Centre for Disease Control, most reported COVID cases (nearly 80%) are among those who have received one, two or three doses of a vaccine. This type of additional statistical information on the COVID-19 health outcomes of the vaccinated would provide helpful context for your readership.

We thank you for taking an interest in and covering our story and allowing us this opportunity to address your readers in this letter to the editor.

Sincerely,

BCPS Employees for Freedom

cc:

Letters to the Editor
letters@timescolonist.com

Cindy E. Harnett
ceharnett@timescolonist.com

The post Letter to the Editor of the Victoria Times Colonist appeared first on BCPS Employees for Freedom Society.

February 6, 2022

Ms. Lori Wanamaker
Deputy Minister to the Premier,
Cabinet Secretary and Head of the BC Public Service
Lori.Wanamaker@gov.bc.ca

Ms. Wanamaker:

Re: End the Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate for BC Public Service Employees Now

We write in follow up to our October 28, 2021, letter (enclosed) regarding our serious concerns and opposition to what was, at that time, your proposed proof of COVID-19 vaccination policy for BC Public Service (BCPS) employees.

As a reminder, we advocate on behalf of a growing conglomerate of BCPS employees, including more than 400 registered and verified members, and many more who have resigned or retired early and reluctantly in response to your actions as Head of the BC Public Service. These include employees of all provincial government ministries, agencies, boards and authorities governed under the Public Service Act.

Since the BCPS proceeded to implement at your direction “Human Resources Policy 25 – COVID-19 Vaccination” (the Policy) on November 1, 2021, and began to place hundreds of employees on leave without pay starting November 22, a number of significant events and unfavourable evidence concerning the performance of B.C.’s COVID-19 vaccination program and public health strategy have seriously undermined the rationale for the Policy and exposed you, the BCPS as the employer, and the Government of British Columbia to extraordinary legal and financial liability.

Rationale for Vaccine Mandate Invalidated

In your October 5, 2021 email to all BCPS employees, you stated that “vaccination is the safest, most effective measure to reduce the transmission of the virus in our communities.” In a follow up email to employees on October 19, you further claimed that “I am confident the proof of vaccination policy is an important and necessary step to ensure our workplaces remain as safe as possible for each of us and for the public we serve,” and went on to say: “[v]accination against COVID-19 is without question in the public interest. The vaccines are proven to be safe and effective, and that is an evidence-based determination made by expert colleagues across the public service at the provincial and federal level.”

Unfortunately, your statements concerning COVID-19 vaccine efficacy have not withstood the test of time. According to the most recent data available from the BC Centre for Disease Control, people inoculated with one, two and three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine now make up nearly 80% of new cases and more than two thirds of hospitalizations and deaths in British Columbia from COVID-19.¹

It is now widely acknowledged that the pharmaceutical products marketed as COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent either infection or transmission of the virus and its variants. What is more, while these interventions have been touted as effective in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death, the majority of British Columbians currently admitted to hospital and dying from COVID-19 are vaccinated.

Ms. Wanamaker, clearly these vaccines have not solved the problem as promised, yet it seems the approach of politicians and public officials in this province is to double down on a failed strategy and continue the senseless and coercive mandates that are impairing the delivery of public services, harming the public and the economy, and leading public servants and their families into financial ruin. If both the vaccinated and unvaccinated can become infected, transmit the virus and become ill, and the majority of British Columbians admitted to hospital and dying from COVID-19 are vaccinated, why must only the unvaccinated be prevented from working for the BCPS?

B.C.’s Changing Public Health Response to COVID-19

In October you said you made the decision to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination for BCPS employees following a conversation with B.C.’s Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry. We note that the Policy states that it “will be reviewed and updated as needed based on guidance and directives from the PHO.” Have you spoken with Dr. Henry recently? On Friday, January 21, 2022, she announced a major shift in B.C.’s response to COVID-19, admitting that “[w]e cannot limit all risk” and that going forward the public health guidance will be to manage COVID-19 much like “the common cold.”² Dr. Henry elaborated further on this new guidance: “As long as we are feeling well, in this new context we can and must continue going to work, going to school and socializing safely in our small groups.”

Ms. Wanamaker, will you accept this guidance, reverse course on the Policy, and allow healthy, symptomless BCPS employees on unpaid leave to return to work? Or will you continue to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination with the BC Vaccine Card, in violation of employees’ rights to medical privacy, informed consent and bodily autonomy? And will you terminate BCPS employees starting on February 22 who have declined this ineffective pharmaceutical intervention or refused to disclose their personal, private medical information?

BC Vaccine Card – Useless to Protect Public Health and a Violation of Medical Privacy

Regarding the BC Vaccine Card, what exactly is the purpose of requiring this affront to medical privacy for employment now that it is clear the virus is transmitted between and infects both the vaccinated and unvaccinated? Has it been, as Dr. Patricia Daly, Vice-President, Public Health and Chief Medical Health Officer for Vancouver Coastal Health, candidly told medical staff on a call that was made public in the fall of 2021, that the Vaccine Card is intended not to limit the spread of COVID-19 but rather to create “an incentive to get higher vaccination rates”?³

Whether the motivation to require BCPS employees to obtain the BC Vaccine Card has been to increase injections of an ineffective pharmaceutical, or to forcibly onboard employees onto a new Digital ID/Verifiable Credential to remain employed, it can no longer be credibly argued that it was to ensure safety in the workplace. This has been demonstrated by your continued deferral of the return to in-person work.

Work from Home, But Only if You’re Vaccinated

Ms. Wanamaker, for nearly two years now, since March 2020, the vast majority of office-based BCPS employees have faithfully performed their duties remotely from home, aided by the online tools we have become accustomed to using. While your predecessor, Don Wright, launched an aborted attempt to recall employees to the office in the fall of 2020, you have repeatedly deferred the return to in-person work, often citing the need for precaution with regard to COVID-19 and on one occasion the emergency flooding in the Fraser Valley. Throughout the fall of 2021 and now into 2022, you have alternately signaled an imminent return to the office and then, at the last minute, postponed it.

In October you told BCPS employees they would return to the office starting November 22, the date by which they were required to show the BC Vaccine Card to maintain their employment. This was, according to you, “an important and necessary step to ensure our workplaces remain as safe as possible.” Yet, the November 22 deadline came and went, BCPS employees who did not show a vaccine passport were placed on unpaid leave, and their colleagues who did continued to work remotely from home! You extended this deferral in December and again in January, indefinitely.

Quite frankly, we are struggling to understand these actions. Why was it necessary to put BCPS employees working safely from home on unpaid leave when their vaccinated colleagues continued to work remotely? How has this improved workplace safety? Has it been worth the disruption to the BCPS, to the delivery of programs and services, and the wave of resignations and early retirements, to achieve vaccination purity among BCPS employees? How can these actions be construed as anything other than an arbitrary form of discrimination against an entire class of public servants?

Costs to the Public and Punishment of Employees

This mandate has taken an unprecedented toll on public services and created an enormous legal and financial liability for the provincial government. How much will it cost the B.C. public in legal fees, severance, replacement and retraining costs to have removed many hundreds of BCPS employees for exercising their rights to medical privacy and choice, and to have sent many more experienced public servants unwillingly into early retirement? Is it a wise and prudent use of public funds, during these times of economic hardship and uncertainty, to punish employees in this way? Should this Policy prove to be untenable in the future, as we believe it now is, will terminated employees be welcomed back to work for the BCPS and once again serve the public?

Let Us End the Mandate Now

The world has reached a turning point in the COVID-19 saga. Many jurisdictions including England⁴, Saskatchewan⁵ and our closest neighbour, Alberta⁶, are beginning to recognize the error of COVID-19 restrictions and mandates and are moving to abolish proof of vaccination requirements and vaccine passports for healthcare workers and the public alike. Increasingly, medical experts and scientists are coming to the conclusion that vaccines are tools, not silver bullets,⁷ and that other public health approaches must be taken to deal with COVID19. Even Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, conceded this past Friday, February 4th, that all existing public health policies, including provincial vaccine passports, need to be “re-examined” in the coming weeks.⁸

Ms. Wanamaker, we ask you to acknowledge these realities and take the following actions:

• End the proof of COVID-19 vaccination Policy for BCPS employees;
• Reinstate BCPS employees placed on leave without pay immediately to their positions; and
• Provide severance and back pay to BCPS employees who cannot return to their jobs due to the harmful, stigmatizing and discriminatory actions taken against them by the employer.

We urge you to meet with us as soon as possible to hear our concerns and help facilitate an amicable solution. The livelihoods and well-being of hundreds of dedicated public servants and their families depend on our collective ability to find common ground.

Please hear our appeal, Ms. Wanamaker. Let us end the mandate together now.

We thank you for your attention to this matter and look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

BCPS Employees for Freedom

¹ BC Centre for Disease Control, COVID-19 Regional Surveillance Dashboard. Accessed February 6, 2022.< http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/data-reports/covid-19-surveillance-dashboard >.
² CTV News. “’We cannot eliminate all risk’: B.C. starting to manage COVID-19 more like common cold, officials say.” January 21, 2022 < https://bc.ctvnews.ca/we-cannot-eliminate-all-risk-b-c-starting-to-manage-covid-19-more-like-common-cold-officials-say-1.5749895 >.
³ Life Site News. “Top Vancouver doc caught admitting vax passports are merely ‘incentive’ program.” October 19, 2021 < https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vaccine-passport-just-an-incentive-and-not-about-health-vancouver-medical-officer/ >.
⁴ The Guardian. “Ministers plan to scrap vaccine mandate for NHS staff in England.” January 31, 2022. < https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/31/ministers-plan-to-scrap-vaccine-mandate-for-nhs-staff-in-england >.
⁵ CBC News. “Sask. Premier says province will end proof of vaccine policy in ‘not-too-distant future’.” January 29, 2022. < https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/scott-moe-proof-of-vaccination-twitter-1.6332514 >.
⁶ The Globe and Mail. “Premier Jason Kenney to announce next week the date Alberta will end its COVID-19 vaccine passport.” February 4, 2022. < https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-kenney-to-announce-next-week-the-date-alberta-will-end-its-covid-19/ >.
⁷ The Globe and Mail. Op. Ed. Norman Doidge, MD. “Vaccines are a tool, not a silver bullet. If we’d allowed more scientific debate, we would have realized this earlier.” January 22, 2022. < https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-vaccines-are-a-tool-not-a-silver-bullet-if-wed-allowed-more-scientific/ >.
⁸ CBC News. “Canada needs to adopt a ‘more sustainable’ approach to COVID-19, Tam says.” February 4, 2022. < https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-more-sustainable-covid-response-1.6339609 >.

PDF Version of Open Letter to Lori Wanamaker

The post Open Letter to Lori Wanamaker: End the Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate for BC Public Service Employees Now appeared first on BCPS Employees for Freedom Society.

The following are letters sent on behalf of BC Public Service Employees to their respective unions (BCGEU and PEA) demanding representation and job action in relation to the BC Public Service Agency’s vaccine mandate.

BCGEU HEADQUARTERS
4911 Canada Way (at Iris)
Burnaby, BC V5G 3W3
Email: president@bcgeu.ca

November 10, 2021

Dear BCGEU President Stephanie Smith:

Re: Mandatory Vaccination Policy/ Medical coercion/Mandatory Proof of Vaccination

Representing a large group of BCGEU members (vaccinated and unvaccinated), we submit this letter to express our profound concerns and stance against human rights violations, discrimination, and abuses of power through medical coercion, mandatory vaccination, and mandatory proof of vaccination as implemented by our employer. Alongside millions of Canadians, we stand united in the universally accepted tenet that our fundamental rights and freedoms keep Canada free and democratic as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights.

We are writing in good faith and good conscience demanding representation by the BCGEU supporting each member’s right to free, full and informed consent, and the right to bodily autonomy. We request that you fulfill your contractual responsibilities to protect your membership from any and all unlawful and inhumane actions taken by the employer to make Covid-19 vaccination and proof of vaccination a condition of employment.

As the BCGEU President, you are responsible for addressing problems affecting the union’s members, responding and engaging with all members and developing concrete strategies through direct consultation. We respectfully request you fulfill those responsibilities to this group regarding the concern(s) we raise herein. You have a duty to remain unbiased to the agendas of the government of the day and to protect your members against harassment, bullying,
discrimination, assault, and crimes against humanity by the employer. Members have reached out to you and Union representatives regarding concerns over the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy and have received unsatisfactory support. This behaviour is unacceptable, unethical, unlawful, and breaches all matters of the contractual foundation that enables you to retain your role as President.

You advised in your October 14, 2021 email to the membership that you recognize the union’s primary role is to protect the rights of members as set out in the collective agreement. You acknowledge that this includes the right to safe and healthy workplaces. However, by not stating otherwise, you have insinuated that we have no rights with respect to this mandatory vaccination policy and breach of our private medical records. Your only suggestion was to apply for a medical exemption. This is misguided suggestion since the exemption criteria created by the Provincial Health Officer (PHO) in itself is a human rights violation based on medical discrimination. Furthermore, the links offered in the FAQ do not provide any information on the union’s commitment to protect our legal and constitutional rights.

The orders issued by the PHO make it abundantly clear that there are no exemptions, only deferrals, and the language was notably discouraging to the likelihood that members would qualify. A safe and healthy workplace is one that is free of bullying, coercion, manipulation, and intimidation. The BCGEU should not consider their role as being completed upon the provision of a list of potential exemptions. The unions duty to the membership should, at the very least, include fighting for the legally enshrined rights of choice, medical privacy and to bodily autonomy free from coercion, intimidation, manipulation, and certainly free from any threat against their access to gainful employment.

According to a BCGEU news publication, “existing legal decisions are clear that an employercan make workplace rules about vaccination…”

We hereby request that you provide a copy of these legal decisions indicating the law in Canada that entitles an employer to mandate a medical treatment that is still undergoing its clinical trial phase as a condition of maintaining employment.

You further acknowledged that any rules an employer makes must be reasonable in the circumstances. Mandating a vaccine as a condition of employment, when the virus has killed less than 30,000 Canadians in two years¹ is anything but reasonable. In addition, government regulatory bodies and vaccine manufacturers alike have made it clear: vaccines do not fully prevent contraction or transmission of the Covid-19 virus and their long-term efficacy is unknown. Therefore, it is unreasonable in the current circumstances to mandate vaccines when those who comply still pose a health threat to others as they are more likely to be asymptomatic spreaders of the virus.

Finally, if you truly acknowledge it is the union’s responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy workplace whilst acknowledging that an employer must be reasonable in their development of policies, we hereby request that you protect the BCGEU membership from this unlawful mandate and press the employer for alternative options ensuring health and safety in the workplace that do not compromise our rights to medical privacy and bodily autonomy.

Medical and Scientific Evidence

Canadian physicians and other healthcare professionals around the world have expressed serious concerns regarding the lack of safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines. We share these concerns and ask that you demonstrate your commitment to your members by reading the following letters and examine the information referenced within them. These are but a small selection of the scientific literature available addressing issues around the Covid-19 vaccines.

1. Canadian Covid Care Alliance Declaration September 24, 2021²
2. Open Letter from Okanagan Healthcare Professionals October 6, 2021³
3. Open Letter from Okanagan Healthcare Professionals September 9, 2021⁴

The information referenced in the letters from the Okanagan Healthcare Professionals confirm that the facts alleged by the PHO about the Covid-19 experimental vaccines safety and efficacy are patently false.

We hereby request that the BCGEU cease to support policies that are an injustice to basic human rights and lack scientific credibility.

Letter to Our Employer

Because we have not yet received the representation from the BCGEU that we are entitled to, we took it upon ourselves to write a letter to the employer on our own behalf.⁵ Please take the time to read our letter to the employer as it sets out what we have been advised are our rights by legal authorities. Our letter also sets out the ways in which any individual or organization (both employer and union) that supports, encourages, or facilitates a mandatory vaccination policy and proof of vaccination can be held liable. This liability includes civil damages, fines, and criminal sanctions.

We hereby request that the BCGEU confirm its commitment to advocate for its membership, including our group, so that we will not have to continue to do so without the assistance of our union.

Collective Agreement

Our collective agreement contains no requirement that members submit to mandatory vaccines and proof of vaccination as a condition of our continued employment.

While our PHO has recently said that a medical exemption can be applied for, it is clear by their limited scope that these exemptions are discouraged⁶ and that they likely will be temporary, most of which indicating a deferral for only 90 days.⁷ It has also been made clear that a letter from a physician will be required in order to be considered for such an exemption which is also all but impossible.⁸ We are fully aware that the PHO and the College of Physicians and Surgeons have both written letters to doctors discouraging them from writing exemption letters, thereby making it even more difficult to even apply for an exemption.⁹ Hence, the aforementioned medical exemptions were NOT created in good faith and this is profoundly troublesome.

In all of these circumstances, it is unreasonable, if not unconscionable, for the BCGEU and the labour union movement to support the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy. The very foundation of the collective agreement is to protect members from employer overreach. This policy defies the very reason for BCGEU’s existence: to protect workers’ civil rights and liberties, including bodily autonomy, privacy, and the right to informed consent.

We hereby request the BCGEU to substantiate the employers right to implement a Covid-19 vaccination policy and cite where in the collective agreement the BCGEU has agreed to support the violation of members’ right to bodily autonomy and medical privacy.

Our Legal Rights

In our letter to our employer, we have set out our legal rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the common law, the Human Rights Code, the Workers Compensation Act among others. We implore the BCGEU to address the importance of accommodating all members, including those who do not wish to be vaccinated or provide private medical information in accordance with the principles of their Charter protected values which include: the freedom of
conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held¹⁰ that belief is not amenable to compulsion. Attempts to compel belief or practice deny the reality of individual conscience (paragraph 120). An emphasis on individual conscience and individual judgment lies at the heart of our democratic political tradition. The ability of each citizen to make free and informed decisions is the absolute prerequisite for the legitimacy, acceptability, and efficacy of our government and are the
essential conditions of the political tradition underlying the Charter (paragraph 122).

The employer’s vaccination policy clearly violates our constitutional rights and freedoms. To threaten our employment for failing to consent to the COVID-19 vaccine or refusing to share private medical information is a denial of our freedom of individual conscience; it’s a denial of our individual judgment in thought, belief, opinion, and religious conviction and denies our rights of conscientious consent or refusal.

The BC Human Rights Commissioner issued a heavily qualified statement when she said:

… [authorities] can in some circumstances implement a vaccination status policy such as a proof-of-vaccination requirement – but only if other less intrusive means of preventing Covid-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.¹¹

https://bchumanrights.ca/news/b-c-s-human-rights-commissioner-issues-guidance-about-proof-of-vaccinationrequirements/

These conditions have not been met. There are less intrusive means of preventing Covid-19 than forcing people to take a vaccine in order to maintain employment. There is no demonstrable evidence to suggest the protocols and measures the B.C. government employees have utilized for the last 18 months have been inadequate.

The Canadian Covid Care Alliance accurately summarizes the law of ‘informed consent’ in a document entitled “What is Informed Consent and How Does It Applied to Covid 19 Vaccination?”

“Healthcare providers are responsible for presenting patients with clear and complete information about proposed medical interventions, and for answering all questions related to treatment. The information must be contextualized for each patient’s individual situation, taking into account variables such as age, gender, and medical history. The information must be adequate, true and include an explanation of treatment benefits, side
effects, risks, alternatives and the consequences of not receiving treatment. In some cases, information about the clinical trials that support the safety and effectiveness of the treatment is also necessary, particularly when specific groups of people have been excluded from the trials.… Informed consent must be voluntary. After receiving adequate information about a recommended treatment, a person must be in a position to express his or her free will without any controlling influence or coercion…”¹²

https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/what-is-informed-consent-and-how-does-it-apply-tocovid-
19-vaccinations/

Informed consent is not possible given we have not been provided by our employer, or those administering the injections, the information necessary to make an informed choice. The letters from the Okanagan Healthcare Professionals that we have referenced provide volumes of evidence to suggest that these experimental vaccines are both harmful and ineffective.

Our Requests of the BCGEU

1. Demand Credible Scientific Evidence from the employer that clearly shows the experimental Covid-19 vaccines are 100% safe, offer no associated harm or injury in both the short or long term and provide full disclosure of all risks including potential side effects.
2. Take United Job Action across the labour union to stop the mandate and other abuses.
3. Take Legal Action against the employer to stop the mandate and other abuses if the employer is not responsive to the job action. The Ontario Superior Court granted a temporary injunction against the Ontario Government’s vaccine mandates on behalf of Ontario Health Care Workers.¹³
4. Demand the Employer Cease Unpaid Leave until they identify the legal basis and justification as supported by the collective agreement.
5. Advocate for all members and provide support and equal representation.
6. Condemn the Bullying and discriminatory harassment that the unvaccinated and undeclared members are experiencing in their workplaces.
7. Demand Medical Privacy for all members.
8. Meet and Consult with our group to address our concerns.

The BCGEU cannot in good conscience turn their backs on their membership. We appeal to you to represent us against this extreme injustice. Long after the governments of the day are gone and the conglomerate media have been broken up, the labour union movement should remain standing, unrelenting in its protection of workers’ civil rights and liberties in the context of employment. If the BCGEU abandons its values and its purpose to protect workers in these
troubled times, then what purpose does it serve? Who truly represents the interests of the workers?

If the BCGEU fulfills its purpose and supports all workers, that means supporting its members rights to make different choices from one another. This attempt to be unified in support can create non-unity amongst its membership but the BCGEU has not shied away from making the difficult but right decisions in the past in order to ensure it upholds Canadian laws and freedoms.

It would be strategically wise of the BCGEU to disengage with the government with respect to this mandatory vaccine policy. The policy is attracting significant liability. It would be significantly detrimental to the BCGEU to be ensnared in legal liability matters.

The law clearly protects members from being constructively dismissed from their employment for maintaining bodily autonomy and right to privacy. The vaccine mandate violates the human rights and liberties of the entirety of the membership and will result in their loss of employment and ability to support themselves and their families. The BCGEU has maintained a commitment to its members’ human rights and civil liberties. As such we strongly encourage the BCGEU to undertake a thorough review of both the employer’s policy and the pillars of the union’s duty to its membership. Acquiescing to the vaccine mandate, in deference to an illegal health order contravenes all of these fundamental duties and principles.

With the greatest of respect, the BCGEU contracted with its members when they joined the union to represent them against any unfair or illegal behaviour of its employer. This is true whether or not the union leadership aligns ideologically with the position of all its members on all issues. It is on the basis of this agreement between the BCGEU and its members that we implore you to represent all members fairly and equally. At the end of the day, the BCGEU has
the support of the law when it finally makes the choice to support its members and defend them.

We look forward to hearing back from you by Monday, November 15, 2021.

The signatories below represent a small and diverse cross-section of the greater group of BCGEU members whom, irrespective of vaccination status, are dissatisfied with the BCGEU’s lack of action in regard to the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy and look forward to a dignified and timely response from their union.

Sincerely,

120 BCGEU Members – names have been redacted for confidentiality.

cc:

Paul Finch, BCGEU Treasurer
James Coccola, Executive Vice-President, BCGEU
Doug Kinna, Executive Vice-President, BCGEU
Kari Michaels, Executive Vice-President, BCGEU
Judy Phipps, Executive Vice-Preseident, BCGEU
Paul Servant, paul.servant@icloud.com

Citations

1. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html?stat=num&measure=deaths&map=pt#a2
2. https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CCCA-Declaration-Final_v6_Sept26th2021.pdf
3. https://canadahealthalliance.org/open-letter-to-dr-henry-mr-dix-mr-hogan-attorney-general-eby-6-october-2021/
4. https://canadahealthalliance.org/open-letter-to-dr-henry-mr-dix-mr-hogan-9-september-2021/
5. https://bcpsforfreedom.com/open-letter-to-lori-wanamaker/
6. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-healthofficer/covid-19/covid-19-exemption-guidelines-request-for-reconsideration.pdf
7. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-healthofficer/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine-medical-deferral-form.pdf
8. https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/Joint-Statement-on-Misleading-COVID-19-Information-2021-05-06.pdf
9. https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/Joint-Statement-on-Misleading-COVID-19-Information-2021-05-06.pdf
10. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1985/1985canlii69/1985canlii69.html
11. https://bchumanrights.ca/news/b-c-s-human-rights-commissioner-issues-guidance-about-proof-of-vaccinationrequirements/
12. https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/what-is-informed-consent-and-how-does-it-apply-tocovid-19-vaccinations/
13. https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/ontario-court-issues-interim-injunction-against-uhn-vaccine-mandate

Herb Dunton
Barrister & Solicitor
P.O. Box 16024, Abbotsford, BC, V3G 0C6
T: 604-807-0102; E: herb.dunton@gmail.com

November 9, 2021

Professional Employees Association
505 – 1207 Douglas Street
Victoria, BC
V8W 2E7

Attention: President Shawna LaRade
c. Executive

VIA EMAIL: slarade@pea.org

Dear President LaRade:

Re: Mandatory vaccine policy developed in relation to governmental Public Health Orders

I am writing to you on behalf of my clients, a group of PEA members. My clients have retained my services to assist them in understanding the law and in presenting their requests to you for PEA’s support and representation against the “vaccine” mandate of a ruthless Provincial Government.

My clients are not coming to PEA as an adversary, nor with the threat of litigation. Rather, they are hopeful that this discussion will result in a renewed solidarity and shared sense of purpose among the PEA membership.

My clients are not ‘anti-vaxxers’, having received vaccinations in the past. But they are asserting their legal right personally – and PEA’s legal right on behalf of the membership – to exercise their freedom of choice to refuse injections of experimental medicines known to cause harm.

1. Requests – My clients respectfully request the following of PEA:
   • Evidence – Demand that the employer and/or the BC PHO produce scientific evidence in keeping with their claims as listed in ADDENDUM “A” to this letter, that:
     • the vaccines would make my clients safer to clients and co-workers;
     • the vaccines are safe for my clients – disclosing the risks and side effects.
   • My clients have produced evidence in this letter that:
     • the vaccines would not make them safer to clients and co-workers; and
     • the vaccines are unsafe for them.
   • Policy Grievance – File a policy grievance with the employer(s) concerning the numerous irregularities around this vaccine mandate, including:
     • the draconian outcomes falling upon individual members, consequences never previously contemplated, imagined or agreed upon – and certainly not deserved.
   • Personal Grievances – Stand with individual members in support of:
     • their Charter freedoms of (s. 2a) conscience, religion; (s. 2b) thought, belief, opinion, and expression; (s. 7) their rights of life, liberty and security of the person, including their rights of informed consent and privacy, and (s. 15) their rights to equal treatment. Why would you not stand with your members in these honourable pursuits?
   • United Action – Take united job action across the labour union movement to stop the mandate and related abuses.
   • Legal Action – Take legal action against the employer(s) to stop the mandate and other abuses, if the employer is not responsive to job action.
   • Unpaid Leave – Demand that the employer identify its legal basis for placing my clients on unpaid leave as intended, as this action appears to be in the nature of a disciplinary suspension without sound legal basis.
   • Advocate – Support, represent, and advocate for them against mandatory vaccination.
   • Bullying – Take action to end the severe bullying of the unvaccinated and undeclared, and the extremist advocacy of the pro-mandate lobby.
   • Privacy – Demand the employer respect their privacy concerning medical information.
   • Meeting – Meet with my clients to discuss their concerns

2. Collective Agreement – What it says

There is nothing in the Collective Agreement that would permit a vaccine mandate at all, much less a mandate of these mRNA vaccines, which are still in the clinical trial stage. Even if some implication could be drawn from the general health and safety provisions of the Collective Agreement, that PEA members will participate in vaccination programs – which my clients specifically deny – vaccines of the nature being mandated were never contemplated by the drafters of the Collective Agreement.

• Vaccine re-defined – The dictionary definition of vaccine¹ has been changed in the SARS-COV-2 (“Covid-19”) era, to now include mRNA medicines, such as Pfizer/BioNTech (Comirnaty), and Moderna (Spikevax), which are claimed to function through an injection of mRNA molecules surrounded by a lipid nanoparticle. It is not open to the employer to require PEA members to receive into their bodies any novel medicines newly defined as vaccines, which were never contemplated when the Collective Agreement were agreed upon. This sort of re-interpretive sleight-of-hand by the employers cannot be palatable to PEA.
• Incomplete trials – Clinical trials only begin to be completed in 2023 for the vaccines being mandated by the employer, including the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, as well as the AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria), and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) non-mRNA vaccines. The parties to the Collective Agreement certainly never contemplated that vaccines could be mandated which had not been proven safe and effective through completed clinical trials.
• Vaccine death and injury – The parties to the Collective Agreement certainly never imagined that the employer could mandate union members to receive injections of any vaccine that has caused astronomical death and injury, as these ones have. PEA members never agreed to that.
• Doctor’s Note– In order to be exempted from the vaccine mandate, the Public Health Office advises that a member’s physician must advise in writing of potential adverse effects. However, the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons have threatened the doctors with regulatory action if they fail to promote a pro-vaccine agenda, and the Public Health Officer has warned doctors about issuing exemption letters. The parties to the Collective Agreement never agreed to something so egregious.

However, despite the risk of discipline, many doctors have voiced their opposition to the government’s Covid-19 policies, such as the 500 doctors of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance in their publication of September 24, 2021, Covid-19 Canadian Covid Care Alliance Declaration, as have a group of Okanagan health care professionals in their 1^st Open Letter and 2^nd Open Letter to Bonnie Henry. These documents contain links to numerous scientific documents.

In these circumstances, it would be unreasonable, even unconscionable for PEA, and the labour union movement generally, to lend their weight and influence to the BC government’s abhorrent vaccine mandate policy.  This government policy defies the very reason for PEA’s existence – to protect workers’ civil rights and liberties, including their health and safety in the context of employment. It is alarming that the provincial and federal governments could have won any buy-in at all from the unions for this illiberal policy.

3.      Summary of my clients’ concerns

Historically, PEA has maintained a commitment to its members’ civil rights and liberties. The PEA Constitution contains the following commitment at Article II – Objects, 7:

“To do any other things as may be necessary for the welfare of the members of the Association.”

That is the commitment that my clients are asking PEA to stand by. Clearly, the vaccine mandate violates the human rights and liberties of PEA members. This mandate attempts to legitimize a culture of harassment and discrimination – of coerced medical experimentation, and compelled thought, belief, opinion and expression – purportedly in relation to an urgent health and safety issue – and authorize the loss of career and livelihood for those of your members who exercise their rights and do not choose to consent to the Provincial Health Officer’s illegal Orders.

The common law and statutory law of BC and Canada are categorical in their protection of PEA members from being constructively dismissed from their employment for refusing to receive the experimental vaccines.

The labour union movement has always been categorical in its utter contempt and derision of any such contrived reasoning that would crush its members underfoot – until now. It’s time for PEA to reverse course.

The novel, transitory Orders of the Provincial Health Officer requiring vaccination or constructive dismissal are illegal. These Orders are ultimately bound to fail in the courts under the accumulating medical evidence.

Accordingly, my clients request that PEA undertake a reassessment of its current ‘pandemic’ policy, and recognize the irreconcilable conflict between

a) on one hand, its commitment to the civil rights and liberties of its members, and its duty to represent and defend its members against any illegal behaviour of the employer; and

b) on the other hand, its acquiescence, even support of the vaccine mandate, in deference to the Provincial Health Officer.

With respect, PEA contracted with its members when they joined the union to represent them against any unfair or illegal behaviour of employers – whether or not the union leadership aligns ideologically with a member’s cause. It is on the basis of that agreement between PEA and its members, that my clients – your members – seek PEA’s wholehearted support, representation and advocacy of their cause.

I understand that PEA has expressed support for the vaccine mandate, and has expressed the view that the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, and continues to encourage its members to get vaccinated.

With greatest respect, PEA is not a body of physicians that it could or should offer legal and medical opinions of this nature. I urge PEA to turn back from this policy position, not based on sound and updated medical evidence. PEA’s vaccine convictions may have been reasonable in the past, before the definition of vaccine was changed. But PEA’s vaccine policy is not reasonable now.

Pointedly, the vast preponderance of expert evidence now clearly shows the vaccines are neither safe nor effective, despite the political-media narrative to the contrary, and despite the pressures placed upon you by the vaccine mandate advocates both inside and outside your union, by the virus-terrified, and by your political allies.

My clients are concerned with the employer’s apparent intentions to place them on unpaid leave and possibly require their attendance of Covid-19 re-education courses – disciplinary measures never contemplated in the Collective Agreement, and taken without the recourse of due process or redress. My clients are also concerned that they not be placed in some sort of alternate work arrangement amounting to downgraded employment status. They are further concerned that they not be subjected to PCR testing as an alternative to vaccination. PCR tests are another form of invasive medical treatment which nobody is legally obligated to receive. The preponderance of evidence is that PCR testing is profoundly unreliable – in effect useless ² for determining Covid- 19 infection, at least the way it’s being done in Canada. Rapid antigen screening testing is similarly invasive and ineffective, and in any event requires a confirmatory test like PCR.

My clients entreat PEA to reassess its vaccine mandate policy against its core historical values, and recognize that its obligations lie in protecting its members who refuse the vaccine mandate, including ongoing booster shots, from the abrogation of their civil rights and liberties

– and in particular, from being coerced into receiving an invasive, potentially dangerous medical procedure, or be torn from their employment and career.

4. PEA members’ human rights and freedoms

4(a) The Charter – The principles of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are well known:

s. 2(a) freedoms of conscience and religion;

s. 2(b) freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression;

s. 7 right to life, liberty and security of person

Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Dickson wrote in the case R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 SCR 295,

“… belief itself [is] not amenable to compulsion. Attempts to compel belief or practice denied the reality of individual conscience …” (para. 120)

“… an emphasis on individual conscience and individual judgment also lies at the heart of our democratic political tradition. The ability of each citizen to make free and informed decisions is the absolute prerequisite for the legitimacy, acceptability, and efficacy of our system of self-government […] It is because of the centrality of the rights associated with freedom of individual conscience both to basic beliefs about human worth and dignity and

to a free and democratic political system […] They are the [essential conditions] of the political tradition underlying the Charter. (para. 122) (my underlining added)

The “individual conscience” of each of your members is bound together with their freedoms of religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression. None of these matters of conscience are “amenable to compulsion”, nor may anyone attempt to compel or deny them. For the government to threaten your members’ employment for failing to “consent” to its vaccine experiment is a denial of their freedoms of “individual conscience” and “individual judgment” in thought, belief, opinion, and religious conviction, and of their right to conscientious consent or refusal.

In respect of your members section 7 Charter “right to life, liberty and security of person”, LaForest JJ wrote in the case R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 SCR 387, that nobody may be deprived of these rights, except in accord with “… the principles of fundamental justice …” There are absolutely no principles of fundamental justice that would force your members to receive an experimental medicine, already known to be harmful, which surely puts their lives and personal security at risk.

Section 15 of the Charter guarantees my clients “… the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination …” The vaccine mandate violates this equality principle. My clients are arbitrarily mandated to receive vaccines, while other employees even within PEA doing similar work, are arbitrarily exempted. My clients are clearly being discriminated against without excuse.

Notwithstanding any legal advice PEA may have received to the contrary, all of these Charter rights and freedoms have real application to my clients’ cause. These rights and freedoms are not going away.

4(b) Human rights commissioners – Any opinions offered by human rights tribunals or commissioners – as distinct from “superior” courts – which may have led PEA to believe it to be legal for the employer to trample its members’ human rights and freedoms under the pretext of emergency – will not in the end stand up against the common law of the judges, which flows from the superior courts, has been carefully forged over centuries, and emphatically contradicts such opinions.

In any event, the BC Human Rights Commissioner did not issue an unconditional endorsement of the vaccine mandate and passports in her guidance: BC Human Rights Commissioner’s guidance about proof-of-vaccination. The Commissioner’s statement was heavily conditional, saying:

“[…][authorities] can in some circumstances implement a vaccination status policy such as a proof-of-vaccination requirement—but only if

[a] other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and

[b] if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.”

These conditions have not been met. Obviously, there are other “less intrusive means of preventing Covid-19” than the vaccines – for example – the very same protocols and measures that have been used effectively in the PEA work settings these many months – including remote work. Obviously, the commissioner’s guidance is being ignored, as no “consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.” Individual rights have been jettisoned. Only communal rights are (purportedly) considered now.

The BC Human Rights Commissioner goes on in the same document, speaking beyond her authority, saying: “… getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is an important way we can all help keep each other—especially the most marginalized and medically vulnerable people among us— [stay] as safe as possible.” The Commissioner does not have the legal authority to offer such an opinion, and certainly not the medical expertise. She is also wrong, according to the evidence.

4(c) International Law –        The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says at Article 7: “… no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” This International Covenant clearly rules out the coerced participation of PEA members in this government “medical or scientific experiment”.

The vaccines are currently in experimental trials. They are only in the study stage, irrespective of regulatory approval. The current Phase 4 of the studies is uncovering serious side effects not previously seen in Phase 3.  These studies will only begin to be completed in 2023, and later. The global vaccination program is undeniably a medical experiment.

Any company or organization, including PEA, that embraces and promotes information from a merely partially completed trial to encourage or coerce an invasive medical treatment such as the vaccines, is likely to incur serious liability in relation to the vaccine injured (be it psychological, moral or physical injury) who follow their advice and become injured. And those administrators in place at the time the coercive decisions were made will be exposed to personal liability.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us in its preamble:

“Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and […]

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”

This is the language adopted by the nations and peoples of the world in our Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in response to the wicked tyrannies of the day. This foundational international law underscores the imperative that PEA must maintain the highest regard for its members’ human rights, whatever the cost.

The current “contempt for human rights” being demonstrated by the BC government and its Provincial Health Officer, is playing out in the “barbarous acts” of coercing people like your PEA members into receiving vaccines which are known to have injured and killed thousands of people worldwide. Such inhumanity has “outraged the conscience of [people]” worldwide – and in particular your union members, my clients.

PEA’s support for my clients in these circumstances is imperative, not optional.

4(d) Human rights scholarship – Leading human rights scholars have weighed in on these questions. I quote some of these opinions below, from the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. I commend their counsel and cautions to you, as you undertake a reassessment of where PEA, and the labour union movement generally, must stand in respect of the derogation and abrogation of their members’ human rights.

The writers quoted below are not extremists, or “anti-vaxxers”, or “science-deniers”, or any of the other pejoratives thrown about. They are eminent scholars, who in ordinary times PEA would look to and ally with in heart and mind – they may even share PEA’s political preferences. These scholars are among those who, ‘hold the ropes for society’ as we pass through these difficult valleys, helping us to hold true to who we are and what we really believe, even when inconvenient or costly. The applicability of these writings from the Ontario Civil Liberties Association to the vaccine mandate, will be self-evident.

4(e) Ontario Civil Liberties Association – Letter to the Unvaccinated – August 2, 2021

by Angela Durante, PhD; Denis Rancourt, PhD; Claus Rinner, PhD; Laurent Leduc, PhD; Donald Welsh, PhD; John Zwaagstra, PhD; Jan Vrbik, PhD; Valentina Capurri, PhD:

“It is entirely reasonable and legitimate to say ‘no’ to insufficiently tested vaccines for which there is no reliable science. You have a right to assert guardianship of your body and to refuse medical treatments if you see fit. You are right to say ‘no’ to a violation of your dignity, your integrity and your bodily autonomy. It is your body, and you have the right to choose. You are right to fight for your children against their mass vaccination in school.

You are right to question whether free and informed consent is at all possible under present circumstances. Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced deregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harm is unknown […]

You are justified in demanding independent peer-reviewed studies, not funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies […] none of the study data have been made public or available to researchers who don’t work for these companies. […]

You are correct in your calls for a diversity of scientific opinions. […] Choosing not to take the vaccine is holding space for reason, transparency and accountability to emerge. You are right to ask, ‘What comes next when we give away authority over our own bodies?”

4(f) Ontario Civil Liberties Association – Letter to the Vaccinated – August 29, 2021

by Angela Durante, PhD; Denis Rancourt, PhD; Jan Vrbik, PhD; Laurent Leduc, PhD; Valentina Capurri, PhD; Amanda Euringer; Journalist Claus Rinner, PhD; Maximilian C. Forte, PhD; Julie Ponesse, PhD; Michael Owen, PhD; Donald G. Welsh, PhD:

“Prime Minister Trudeau recently warned that “there will be consequences” if federal employees do not comply with vaccine mandates. This is a voice of tyranny that has reverberated fear and heightened agitation across our country. […] What are the consequences of mandating such an insufficiently tested medical intervention? […]

And now, mounting evidence worldwide shows that these vaccines cannot stop the transmission of the virus and variants, yet vaccination mandates continue. […]

The meaning of “fully vaccinated” is rapidly changing as leaders demand the next booster upgrade and threaten ousting us from public spaces if we don’t comply. […]

History has taught us that one-sided arguments and outlawed dissent are signs of totalitarianism lurking at the doorstep. […] Mandating vaccines is a breaking point. […] The consequences of following Prime Minister Trudeau’s current orders are greater than his threatened consequences. […]” (my underlining added)

On behalf of my clients, I implore you to heed the wisdom and warnings of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association.

5.      PEA members’ rights of informed consent

The Supreme Court of Canada case Hopp v. Lepp [1980] 2 SCR 192, sets out what “informed consent” means with respect to a treatment such as the vaccination, as follows:

“The term “informed consent” […] reflects the fact that although there is, generally, prior consent by a patient to proposed surgery or therapy, this does not immunize a surgeon or physician from liability for battery or for negligence if he has failed in a duty to disclose risks of the surgery or treatment, known or which should be known to him, and which are unknown to the patient.

The underlying principle is the right of a patient to decide what, if anything, should be done with his body […] a patient’s consent, whether to surgery or to therapy, will give protection to his surgeon or physician only if the patient has been sufficiently informed to enable him to make a choice whether or not to submit to the surgery or therapy.” (my underlining added).

This case, Hopp v. Lepp, makes it clear that a healthcare provider who fails to obtain the “informed consent” of a patient to a treatment, can be found liable for “battery” (assault) or “negligence” – either civilly or criminally. The authorities in BC are making no attempt to obtain “informed consent” even from willing patients, and purport to mandate the “consent” of the unwilling.  PEA should avoid any association with these errors.

Canadian Covid Care Alliance – The CCCA accurately summarizes the law of “informed consent” arising out of the Hopp v. Lepp case and subsequent case decisions, in a document entitled “What is Informed Consent and How Does It Apply to COVID-19 Vaccination?”:

“Healthcare providers are responsible for presenting patients with clear and complete information about proposed medical interventions, and for answering all questions related to treatment. The information must be contextualized for each patient’s individual situation, taking into account variables such as age, gender, and medical history. The information must be adequate, true and include an explanation of treatments benefits, side effects, risks, alternatives and the consequences of not receiving treatment. In some cases, information about the clinical trials that support the safety and effectiveness of the treatment is also necessary, particularly when specific groups of people have been excluded from the trials. […] Informed consent must be voluntary. After receiving adequate information about a recommended treatment, a person must be in a position to express his or her free will without any controlling influence or coercion.”

Everyone has the right to consent or refuse any medical treatment. Coerced consent is no consent at all.  Consent must be voluntary.

If the BC government does not withdraw its vaccination coercion program, I anticipate receiving instructions to send a demand letter to the employer requiring complete and accurate disclosure about the vaccines in respect of each element of “informed consent” – contextualized to each individual clients, including: an explanation of the benefits, side effects, risks, alternatives, consequences of not receiving treatment – along with information about clinical trials and the vast death and injury toll.

It will be apparent to you that accurate answers to these questions about ‘side effects’ and ‘risks’, do not exist. Nobody has these answers regarding these experimental vaccines. And nobody should pretend to offer answers.

“Informed consent” is impossible in these circumstances, in that these vaccines are still under study, and as such, not all the side effects have been discovered let alone published. It is likely that even those side effects that become known will not be published any time soon, due to the fear of speaking out in a vicious cancel culture, and due to the well-known issue of under- reporting at the best of times, and due to publication biases. Moreover, there are no known studies on the long-term effects of these vaccines (i.e. cancers, infertility, neurological injury), in that the vaccine roll-out only started 9 months ago.

So, I anticipate that my clients’ employers will not even attempt to provide answers to these questions, whether PEA or I put the questions to them. Instead, the BC Government will attempt to steamroll all of us, including PEA. They will continue to demand that your members provide involuntary, uninformed “consent” to their vaccines, or lose their jobs. Some of your members will submit to their demands, or have done so already. Statistically, some of your members will die from the vaccines and others will be permanently injured. The full nature of their suffering cannot yet be known.

PEA cannot in good conscience stand for this. My clients appeal to PEA to take up their cause and represent them against this extreme injustice.

6.      The science around the vaccines

It is important that PEA examine the scientific basis for the vaccine mandate. The following are only a few of many scientific issues around the Covid-19 vaccines:

a. Pandemic of the unvaccinated? – “It’s certainly untrue … that the unvaccinated are somehow driving the emergence of the novel variants. This goes against every scientific principle that we understand.” ³

b. Vaccine death and injury – The Government of Canada reports 17, 079 adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines as of October 4, 2021, including: ⁴

(i) Thrombosis;

(ii) myocarditis;

(iii) Guillain-Barré Syndrome;

(iv) Capillary leak syndrome;

(v) Facial paralysis/Bell’s Palsy;

(vi) But the Canadian government conceals the number of deaths, which is imperative information for people in giving “informed consent”.

c. Vaccine death and injury – European Union Database for Adverse Drug Reactions⁵ re Covid-19 vaccines:

(i) 20,595 deaths; and

(ii) 1.9 million injured (50%) seriously.

d. Vaccine death and injury – USA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System⁶ re Covid-19 vaccines:

(i) 15,937 deaths; and

(ii) 752,801 injured.

e. 99% under-reporting of adverse reactions to vaccines – Fewer than 1 % of vaccine adverse events are reported, according to a Harvard Pilgrim study.⁷

f. mRNA vaccine risks were previously known – Pre-trials of mRNA vaccines showed risk of autoimmune disorders and blood coagulation.⁸

g. Vaccines generate resistant variants – Viral variants of concern may emerge with dangerous resistance to the immunity generated by Covid-19 vaccines.⁹

h. Vaccinated people still spread Covid-19.¹⁰

i. Vaccinated people were found to be 27 times more likely to experience symptomatic Covid-19 infection than those with natural immunity from Covid-19.¹¹

j. Fully vaccinated are most infected with Covid-19 – Most of the people infected with Covid-19 in Scotland¹² and Massachusetts¹³ are fully vaccinated.

k. Vaccine mortality – The Covid-19 vaccines are emerging as a very substantial source of morbidity and mortality.¹⁴

l. Vaccines wane in efficacy – Covid-19 vaccines wane in efficacy over time, around 6 months, and boosters become necessary.¹⁵

m. Natural immunity to Covid-19 – even in people never exposed to this virus or SARS-CoV-1, provides stronger, longer-lasting immunity than the vaccines.¹⁶

n. Pre-existing antibody cross-reactivity – A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against Covid-19.¹⁷

The World Health Organization openly partnered with social media¹⁸, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and many others, and the mainstream media¹⁹ of the world, directing them to, quote: “filter out false information and promote accurate information from credible sources like the WHO and the CDC.” ²⁰ In the result, many leading scientists who oppose the Covid-19 narrative have been censored and crushed by an unknowledgeable media. Despite this undisguised scientific censorship, the accumulating scientific evidence around Covid-19 speaks loudly for itself over the political narrative.

7.      Closing Appeal – Government has violated trust with PEA

The human rights and informed consent law that I have summarized in this letter, is very longstanding and oft-applied in Canada. This law will not be overthrown by the hasty ideological decisions of human rights tribunals and transitory governments chasing the passing winds of public opinion in these turbulent times.

Long after the governments of the day are gone and the media accord pushing this global vaccination program has been broken up, the labour union movement, and PEA in particular, should remain standing, unmoved from its core values and raison d’être – of protecting workers’ civil rights and liberties in the context of employment. If PEA abandons its values and its workers in these troubled times, then what purpose remains to it, and who will stand up for these workers?

My clients recognize, with regret, the vehement hostility that the PEA leadership is likely to face from the true believers in forced vaccination, and the fearful within your membership. However, we respectfully submit that PEA is nevertheless bound to throw off these pressures and support my clients, its member, against the vaccine mandate, and is equal to the task.

The government cannot carry off this tyrannical mandatory vaccine program without the cooperation of the labour union movement. Yet, it would be unconscionable for the labour union movement to lend its weight and influence to these abhorrent government policies. Whatever the financial, political and relational costs – and they may be great – PEA must confront the government on these policies.

PEA cannot sustain its current conflict of interest between its political loyalties and its duty to uphold its members’ rights. Let politics go and support your members. For about 35 years the Canadian labour union movement has been largely in accord with successive provincial and federal governments. Almost every cause the unions had fought for over the preceding centuries was adopted at least to some degree by the governments and protected by statute.

That accord has just been shattered by the governments. The relationship is broken. The governments are no longer on your side. And my clients call upon you, their union leaders, to realize that. Realize that through the vaccine mandates governments have launched an oppression against workers unprecedented and unheard of in the history of the union movement. Realize that the governments are equally contemptuous of your interests who are complying with the mandates, as they are of my clients’ interests. This program won’t stop with 3^rd and 4^th doses of vaccine – you can be sure that this government tyranny will soon enough reach out for you and your personal interests.  You cannot comply your way out of tyranny. The governments have absolutely violated the trust built up with the unions over decades.

Not the least reason PEA should disengage with the government with respect to this mandatory vaccine policy, is that such a patently illegal, dangerous and devastating policy is sure to attract liability to its perpetrators and promoters, of a magnitude equal to the massive harms being caused by the policy. PEA should take every precaution to avoid incurring this liability to its membership. I reiterate that PEA’s membership has never empowered its union to wander into this minefield of liability – that is of supporting a vaccine mandate – much less, to stay there after fair warning.

My clients implore PEA to take up their cause against ruthless governments bent on the decimation of their civil rights and freedoms, and possibly their very lives and health.

I would be happy to discuss these matters with you at your convenience. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours truly,

“Herb Dunton”

Herb Dunton

Barrister & Solicitor

c.

1^st VP, Cherene Palmer, cpalmer@pea.org

2^nd VP, Cliff Haman, chaman@pea.org

Secretary-Treasurer, Melissa Doyle, mdoyle@pea.org

GLP Chapter, Elizabeth Hunt, dhunt@pea.org

GLP Chapter, Patricia Wilson, pwilson@pea.org

GLP Chapter, Frank Kohlberger, fkohlberger@pea.org

HESU Chapter, Jackie Paquette, jpaquette@pea.org

HSP, Alyssa Beaven, abeaven@pea.org

SMS Chapter, Bev Waterfield, bwaterfield@pea.org

UVic Chapter, Katy Chan, kchan@pea.org

UVic Chapter, John Foxgord, jfoxgord@pea.org

Uvic Chapter, Sheryl Karras, skarras@pea.org

LABC Chapter, Jeremy Orrego, jorrego@pea.org

FMA Chapter, Brent Hird, bhird@pea.org

ADDENDUM “A”

Demand: that the employer or the BC Public Health Officer answer the following essential questions and cite their scientific authority concerning the mRNA vaccines being mandated in BC.

These requests arise from – the “Order of the Provincial Health Officer re Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Services) COVID-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures, of October 21, 2021”.

1. Re PHO Order, Attestation b, page 4 – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s attestation, that:

“an unvaccinated person who provides health care or services in a hospital or community setting, puts patients, residents, clients, staff and other persons who provide health care or services at risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, and constitutes a health hazard under the Public Health Act.”

2. Re PHO Order, Attestation c, page 4 – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s attestation, that:

“an unvaccinated staff member of an organization which provides health care or services puts staff who provide health care or services, and patients, residents or clients, at risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, and constitutes a health hazard under the Public Health Act.”

3. Re PHO Order, Recital G – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that the vaccines are safe.

4. Re PHO Order, Recital G – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that the vaccines are “very effective.”

5. Re PHO Order, Recital G – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that vaccination is the single most important measure to protect others from COVID-19.

6. Re PHO Order, Recital I – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that there are no other measures nearly as effective as vaccination in reducing the risk of contracting or transmitting SARS-CoV-2, and the likelihood of severe illness and death.

7. Re PHO Order, Recital D – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that the vaccines prevent or reduce the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2.

8. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of being infected with SARS-CoV-2.

9. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of the claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of experiencing higher rates of complications from SARS-CoV-2.

10. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of the claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of experiencing death from SARS-CoV-2.

11. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of the claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to other persons.

12. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of the claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to vaccinated persons.

Citations

¹ In this letter, the word “vaccine” and derivatives are sometimes used in their original definition and sometimes in their revised definition, which will be apparent from context of use.

² The links show that CDC has withdrawn its recommendation of PCR testing re Covid-19.

³ https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/08/16/the-lies-behind-the-pandemic-of- unvaxxed/

⁴ https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/summary.html

⁵ https://www.globalresearch.ca/20595-dead-1-9-million-injured-50-serious-reported-european- union-database-adverse-drug-reactions-covid-19-shots/5751904

6 https://openvaers.com/index.php

⁷ https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report- 2011.pdf

⁸ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5906799/#!po=0.173010

⁹ https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsr2105280

¹⁰ https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-08-19-vaccines-still-effective-against-delta-variant-concern- says-oxford-led-study-covid

¹¹ https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater- immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

¹² https://theexpose.uk/2021/07/29/87-percent-covid-deaths-are-vaccinated-people/

¹³ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w

¹⁴ http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v17n15.shtml

¹⁵ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1.full.pdf

¹⁶ https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.abd3871

¹⁷ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33720905/

¹⁸ https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/report-of-the-director-general-146th- meeting-of-the-executive-board

¹⁹ https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening- remarks-at-the-technical-briefing-on-2019-novel-coronavirus

²⁰ https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/director-general-s-remarks-at-the-media- briefing-on-2019-novel-coronavirus— 8-february-2020

The post Open Letter to BCGEU & PEA re: Mandatory Vaccination Policies appeared first on BCPS Employees for Freedom Society.

October 28, 2021
Lori Wanamaker
Deputy Minister to the Premier,
Cabinet Secretary and Head of the BC Public Service
lori.wanamaker@gov.bc.ca
Dear Lori Wanamaker:

Re: Proposed COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccination Policy for BC Public Service Employees

We write on behalf of a united group of approximately 1400 BC Public Service (BCPS) employees who stand against and will be affected by the proposed mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for BCPS employees that you announced on October 5th, 2021 (the Proposed Policy). We include union and non-union employees across ministries; vaccinated, unvaccinated and non-disclosed. We expect there are thousands of others who will also be affected by the Proposed Policy and/or are similarly concerned by the dangerous precedent it would set.

While individual reasons for concern and opposition to the Proposed Policy are diverse and the information in this letter does not reflect all opinions and perspectives, this letter poses a number of fundamental questions and concerns that many of us share in common that must be transparently addressed by you. These cover issues of privacy, medical freedom and the deeply personal and profound impacts of the Proposed Policy on individuals.

We respect and support the need for the BCPS to maintain safe workplaces. However, coerced vaccination with the threat of job loss is neither acceptable, necessary nor justified. The Proposed Policy as outlined in your October 5th email and in the BCPS’ COVID-19 response FAQs document is unlawful, unconstitutional, discriminatory and unethical. The only acceptable outcome is to withdraw the Proposed Policy, acknowledge your misjudgment, and allow BCPS employees to carry on with their jobs without further coercive and unjustified interference in their personal lives and private medical decisions.

PRIVACY RIGHTS

For the past year, BCPS employees have been continually assured that COVID-19 vaccinations would not be a mandatory condition of employment. Prior to October 5th, the BCPS’ COVID-19 response FAQs stated:

“Will vaccinations be mandatory for the BC Public Service or for certain positions in the BC Public Service?

No. Vaccination for COVID-19 will not be mandatory for ministry employees in the BC Public Service. By fall 2021, vaccinations will have been made available for all B.C. residents who want one.”

Specifically with respect to privacy and vaccination status, the FAQs stated:

“Do I have to tell my supervisor or my ministry that I have been vaccinated?

No, your vaccination is part of your own confidential medical history. You do not need to share your vaccination status, and your supervisor will not ask you.”

“Considering privacy restrictions, will information such as the number of staff immunized in my workplace be shared?

No, vaccinations are a part of a person’s confidential medical history. Your ministry will not ask if you have been vaccinated or gather statistics about the number of staff vaccinated.”

Furthermore, the FAQs stated:

“When workforce leaders plan staffing in office locations, vaccination status should not be requested from employees as this is private medical information. Because of the individualized immune response to vaccination, it should not be a factor in workplace planning based on the current state of Covid-19.”

Indeed, our medical health information is private, confidential and protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner confirms that any vaccination status policies must be authorized by applicable privacy laws. The BCPS does not have the authority to collect our vaccination status.

Ms. Wanamaker, we do not consent to disclosure of our private medical information. Before any employee is compelled to disclose their private medical personal information, the BCPS must clearly demonstrate the legal basis to authorize such collection.

1. Please provide full details of the legal authority upon which the BCPS relies in order to collect and use employees’ private medical information starting on November 22nd.

INSUFFICIENT TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE

Ms. Wanamaker, in your October 5th and October 19th emails, you urge employees not to wait to get vaccinated, and you state that November 22nd allows sufficient time since the announcement on October 5th to become fully vaccinated. Respectfully, by this point in time, anyone who has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine has exercised their informed refusal to take it. They have made that decision thoughtfully and intentionally, and reversing their personal decision is not as trivial or uncontroversial as ‘rolling up their sleeve’. It is completely unfair and unreasonable to demand that anyone make such a consequential decision about their health, employment and future livelihood in the absence of full disclosure of the terms and conditions upon which to base that decision.

You stated that the scope of potential “consequences” was made clear in your October 5th announcement, however to date you have provided only the bare minimum of hypotheticals in order to threaten and coerce employees’ uninformed compliance with your mandate. You have not yet provided sufficient information regarding the Proposed Policy to enable employees to make fully informed decisions, including but not limited to the following essential matters:

• pursuant to what authority the BCPS is implementing the Proposed Policy;
• what exemptions will apply (including whether they will accord with human rights requirements, and whether scientifically proven robust and long-lasting nature immunity will be respected);
• what accommodations will apply (including telework arrangements, rapid testing, mask wearing, antigen testing, work reassignments, or other workplace arrangements);
• what the “consequences” for “failure to comply” with the policy include, other than the possibility of termination, such as whether individuals will be placed on leave;
• how the Proposed Policy will apply to individuals who are presently on various types of leave (short and long-term disability, maternity and parental leave, vacation days, etc.);
• what severance pay would be owed, and how pensions will be affected;
• whether employees’ life insurance and disability insurance will cover individuals if they are injured or killed as a result of vaccination with experimental therapies still in clinical trials;
• whether the Proposed Policy will be temporary or time-limited, enabling workers to return to work after a certain period of time;
• whether COVID-19 booster shots, now being rolled out in BC, will become a future and ongoing requirement in order to maintain one’s employment;
• who will be making these consequential decisions; and
• to what extent the Proposed Policy will allow for discretion, appeals and reconsideration.

It is insupportable and unethical to demand employees begin to make any decisions until the Proposed Policy is transparently and fully disclosed. Assuming that the relevant policy is released on November 1st, as previously stated, it does not provide nearly sufficient time for individuals to make informed decisions and take the necessary steps by November 22nd, including:

• to assess and understand the legal basis for the policy;
• to seek appropriate employment, legal, medical and other advice or referrals from doctors, specialists and other professionals regarding the implications of the policy and a person’s options;
• to seek and obtain exemptions and accommodations, including to have those issues considered, addressed and fully resolved with the employer, union, and Human Resources; and
• after having assessed and explored one’s options, and if ultimately decided upon, to get two doses of vaccine in order to comply with the “fully vaccinated” requirement, accounting for the recommendation from Dr. Bonnie Henry that an 8-week interval between first and second doses is optimal.

Ms. Wanamaker, the acceptable and appropriate solution is to rescind your Proposed Policy. Should you nonetheless proceed, given this lack of transparency and disclosure, the bare minimum in fairness is that you extend the November 22nd timeline for the Proposed Policy to take effect by at least several months.

EXPERIMENTAL MEDICAL TREATMENTS

In your October 19th ‘October Update’ email, you stated that “the vaccines are proven to be safe and effective and that is an evidence-based determination made by expert colleagues across the public service at the provincial and federal level.” The public has been bombarded with messages from public health authorities and the media with these same assurances. Unfortunately, the sloganistic refrain of “safe and effective” and appeals to select expert authority are dishonest and lack credibility considering that these are novel therapeutics for which there is no long-term safety data upon which to base those claims, there is unprecedented censorship of any views or data that question or contradict this narrative, and when the documented risks and injuries of these injections, including death, are known and increasingly apparent yet are dismissed or ignored by public officials.

The facts are:

• The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA injections being marketed as vaccines are experimental gene therapies that are still in Phase III clinical trials until at least 2023. Studies for pregnancy and infant outcomes do not complete until at least 2025. Individuals who take these treatments are consenting to be enrolled as test subjects in the ongoing clinical trials.
• These novel therapeutic injections did not meet the criteria to be considered vaccines until recently when the definition of vaccine was changed by the CDC from “preventing…disease” to “producing immunity” without necessarily preventing disease, to support the inclusion of mRNA technology.
• While most traditional vaccines are trialed for at least 5 to 10 years, these injections are the result of accelerated development, have been in use in humans for less than a year, and there is zero long-term safety data for any of these vaccines.
• Underreporting of vaccine injuries is a well-known and significant problem, particularly in Canada. Nonetheless, injury reports for the COVID-19 injections in the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database have exponentially exceeded all other injury reports for ALL vaccines combined over the past 30 years.
• US, European and Canadian vaccine injury reporting databases confirm a long list of very problematic and life-threatening conditions associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, including but not limited to cardiovascular health, heart conditions, myocarditis, anaphylaxis, neurological harm, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and death.
• The vaccine product monographs state that their impacts on fertility is unknown, their safety and efficacy in pregnant women has not been established, and that a risk to breastfeeding newborns and infants cannot be excluded. Furthermore, no interaction studies have been performed with other drugs, and carcinogenicity potential has not been assessed.

The safety profile of these experimental injections is continually evolving. In the initial vaccine rollout in Canada, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were touted as equally safe and effective, and the public was urged to take the first vaccine they were offered. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson were then delayed, phased out, or halted in Canada and other countries due to safety and quality concerns. Numerous countries have now halted the use of Moderna in some age groups or altogether, meanwhile similar concerns are emerging with the safety profile of Pfizer. Ms. Wanamaker, none of this instills confidence in these novel medical products, and unless you uniquely possess a crystal ball, we cannot accurately predict what further outcomes will emerge next month, in six months, one year or ten years from now. It is deeply unethical to demand that anyone blindly trust their health to the unknown.

Given these alarming statistics and the lack of any long-term safety data, individuals must be free to determine for themselves the potential risks of taking this medical intervention against their personal risks with COVID-19. Recognizing that there is a broad range of severity of COVID-19, the scientific and population data shows that COVID-19 poses no serious health risk to the vast majority of Canadians.

The Proposed Policy demands that BCPS employees be unwilling participants in an experimental medical intervention and in ongoing clinical trials, against their personal and bodily autonomy. Any consent to receiving an injection in these circumstances is vitiated by your threat of job “consequences” up to and including termination, resulting in the loss of people’s livelihoods and their ability to provide for themselves and their families.

2. Please provide the legal basis upon which the BCPS purports to rely in order to require employees to participate as test subjects in clinical trials for experimental medical products, as a condition of employment.

3. If employees unwillingly take the vaccination in order to maintain their employment or avoid other employment-related consequences due to the Proposed Policy, will BCPS assume all legal and financial liability for injuries, deaths and related loss and damage that may result?

DISCRIMINATION, NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

You have stated that you would not implement the Proposed Policy if you did not feel it were necessary. While we respect the need to maintain a safe workplace, we dispute that a universal vaccine mandate is necessary to achieve this. A COVID-19 vaccine mandate is totally illogical considering how these particular therapeutics function and the fact that there are many other less intrusive measures to achieve safe workspaces, including those which the BCPS has touted and effectively implemented since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BC’s Human Rights Code aims to eliminate instances of exclusion and marginalization that are based on generalizations, prejudice, stereotypes, ignorance and fear. It is intended to remove barriers that people face in certain areas of social life due to their ‘disabilities’ or ‘handicaps’. The Human Rights Tribunal has held that it is a violation of he Human Rights Code to dismiss an employee, or refuse to hire a prospective employee, on the basis of a physical condition which did not result in any functional limitation on the part of the employee or prospective employee. As such, the requirement to be injected with an experimental medical treatment as a condition of employment amounts to unjustifiable discrimination against unvaccinated individuals on the basis of physical disability, contrary to Section 13 (Discrimination in employment) of the Human Rights Code.

BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner released a policy guidance report in July, updated October 14, 2021 entitled, “A human rights approach to proof of vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic” (the BCOHRC Guidance). While the BCOHRC Guidance unfortunately does not address privacy laws in depth nor the legalities of mandating experimental COVID-19 vaccines versus more traditional and established vaccines, it states that vaccination status policies “must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code”. They can only be implemented “in limited circumstances—but only if other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.” Furthermore, “no one should experience harassment or unjustifiable discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination status policies.” In particular, the BCOHRC Guidance states that vaccination status policies should be:

• justified by scientific evidence of the risk of transmission in the specific setting;
• time-limited (in place for the shortest possible length of time) and regularly reviewed;
• proportional to the health and safety risks they seek to address (and as more and more people in BC are vaccinated and these risks decrease, duty bearers should relax their rules about vaccination status as well);
• necessary due to a lack of less-intrusive alternatives; and
• authorized by applicable privacy laws.

There are many reasonable and practical alternatives to mandatory vaccination that are more effective at controlling the spread of COVID-19 in BCPS workplaces, all of which are far less prejudicial than the summary termination or constructive dismissal of thousands of loyal employees. Indeed, your BCPS COVID-19 response FAQs have taken this position throughout the Covid-19 pandemic:

“Workplace transmission in BC Public Service offices has been infrequent through the pandemic. With high levels of vaccination across B.C., the risk in our workplaces is further reduced. Unvaccinated individual[s] completing daily health checks, following Communicable Disease Prevention Plans and following physical distancing should not present a high risk in the workplace.”

“All workplaces are equipped with Communicable Disease Prevention Plans designed to reduce transmission of many respiratory viruses, including Covid-19. Protocols such as daily health checks, hygiene practices and physical distancing reduce the risk of virus exposure.”

“Because of the individualized immune response to vaccination, it should not be a factor in workplace planning based on the current state of Covid-19.”

The BCPS has continually assured us that its workspace protocols and safety measures are effective and that there is a low risk of transmission in workspaces. Employees have been safely and effectively able to work remotely and have followed the safety protocols at work. Vaccination levels in the population are at all-time highs, with BC having one of the highest rates of vaccination uptake worldwide. Dr. Bonnie Henry has also stated that the BC Vaccine Card for non-essential venues is intended as only a temporary measure through January. It is therefore highly questionable why the BCPS now proposes to implement this mandatory policy.

Further calling into question the justification and necessity for the Proposed Policy is that COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission:

• As confirmed by Health Canada, the CDC and the vaccine manufacturers themselves, the COVID-19 injections are not designed to prevent infection or transmission, and the clinical vaccine trials have not proven that they prevent infection or transmission.
• There is a lack of scientific data to support the conclusion that the COVID-19 vaccines have had any impact upon reducing the spread of the virus. Outbreaks amongst fully or near-fully vaccinated populations demonstrate the opposite.
• Asymptomatic unvaccinated people have never been proven to be more infectious or transmit more disease than vaccinated individuals.
• Viral loads have been shown to be higher in vaccinated individuals than unvaccinated individuals.
• The only benefit of the vaccines shown in clinical trials was a relative risk reduction in developing severe illness, for which the vast majority of the population is not at risk.
• Worldwide data is now showing that the vaccines have weakened and waning efficacy after as little as 37 days, as evidenced by the push for and rollout of booster shots in BC and elsewhere.

4. Ms. Wanamaker, the Proposed Policy is in violation of human rights laws. Given that:

• both vaccinated and unvaccinated are capable of becoming infected with and transmitting COVID-19;
• a person’s vaccination status does not present a functional limitation on their ability to work;
• BCPS has continuously acknowledged the low risk of workplace transmission;
• safe workplace measures are already in place; and
• there are many other reasonable accommodations and health and safety measures available,

please provide details and your rationale for why and how you believe the Proposed Policy is supportable under human rights laws and will be: evidence-based, time-limited, proportional and necessary.

5. With respect to booster shots: waning efficacy of the vaccines is now being reported after as little as 37 days. Boosters are now recommended and being rolled out by the BCPHO. The Prime Minister has purchased ‘boosters’ through to 2024. Does the BCPS plan to mandate booster shots as a further and ongoing condition of employment on the recommendation of the BCPHO? Will the QR code be the only accepted proof of one’s “fully vaccinated” status, including for future boosters, and if so, why?

EXEMPTIONS AND ACCOMMODATIONS

Ms. Wanamaker, to date you have not provided details about what would constitute exemptions or accommodations under the Proposed Policy. However, you state that “personal preference” is not a legitimate rationale for an accommodation. Respectfully, an individual’s personal decision of whether to undergo any medical treatment must be respected and not coerced otherwise it violates the principles of informed consent. This is particularly evident when it is an experimental medical treatment with documented risks including death. Many people have made decisions not to receive the COVID-19 vaccines for reasons that are deeply personal to them. It is disturbing that the Proposed Policy would require people to disclose their private reasons and circumstances to have their employer judge whether they are deemed sufficiently “legitimate” to merit an exemption.

The Proposed Policy as currently communicated also suggests that exemptions will be extremely narrow. With respect to medical exemptions, we are aware that doctors in BC have been instructed not to issue exemptions or that they may only issue exemptions in extremely narrow circumstances in respect of COVID-19 vaccines, or else risk facing discipline or suspension, and many refuse to issue any exemptions at all. Not only does this top-down decree interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, considering the wide range of contraindications and documented risks and injuries from these vaccines this also amounts to medical malpractice and is extremely unethical. Further, any failure to accommodate and account for naturally acquired robust and long-lasting immunity to COVID-19 would be unscientific.

With respect to accommodations, the BCOHRC Guidance states that, if less intrusive measures don’t work well enough to prevent transmission in a given setting, duty bearers must accommodate those who cannot receive a vaccine to the point of undue hardship, in accordance with the protected grounds of discrimination under BC’s Human Rights Code. The BCOHRC Guidance states that in respect of vaccination status policies, “in this case, relevant protected grounds may include physical or mental disability, place of origin, religion and family status.” The BCOHRC Guidance also states that political belief opposing government rules requiring vaccination “protects a person from adverse impacts in their employment based on their beliefs“.

The BCOHRC Guidance provides further guidance on accommodation to the point of undue hardship, and examples of types of accommodation:

“Under the Human Rights Code, people who cannot be vaccinated because of a Code-protected ground must be accommodated to the point of undue hardship. This means that duty bearers have to take every step possible to address the needs of those who require accommodation, unless taking those steps would amount to “undue hardship” for the duty bearer.“

“If vaccination status policies are necessary to address specific safety concerns in a particular setting, duty bearers must seek to accommodate people unable to get vaccinated. Those accommodations should be based on the individual needs of those involved and should be as easy and unburdensome as possible. For example, employers may exempt an employee from the vaccination status policy, create a requirement for staff to wear a face mask, work at a physical distance from others, work a modified shift, get periodic tests for COVID-19, work remotely or accept a reassignment to a setting that poses less risk of transmission.“

The Proposed Policy is now introduced despite more than a year of BCPS’ consistent and reassuring messaging that, regardless of one’s vaccination status, through the use of COVID-19 advisory signage, occupancy restrictions, sanitizer distribution, masks, daily employee health checks and much more, our workplaces continue to remain safe for people to return to if they wish to work within their offices. It is non-sensical that, if necessary, our buildings could not simply be reverted back to the previous configurations that have been deemed safe throughout the pandemic along with the reimplementation of mandatory mask usage within all buildings, especially given that the majority of buildings affected by the vaccine mandate are not public-facing. An absence of these practical and effective accommodation measures, and considering the ability of employees to work safely from home and in workplaces since the beginning of the pandemic, would be an indicator that the Proposed Policy is neither rational nor connected to health and safety, but rather to achieving a certain target of compliant ‘vaccinated’ persons.

6. On Tuesday, October 5th you stated that you made the decision to require employees to provide proof of full vaccination following a conversation you had with Dr. Bonnie Henry “late last week”. Please demonstrate and provide details of how your decision to implement the Proposed Policy was based on a detailed risk assessment by the BCPS that concluded there are no other reasonable alternatives or accommodations to keep employees and workplaces safe.

7. On Tuesday, October 5th you stated that you made the decision to require employees to provide proof of full vaccination following a conversation you had with Dr. Bonnie Henry “late last week”. Please demonstrate and provide details of how your decision to implement the Proposed Policy was based on a detailed risk assessment by the BCPS that concluded there are no other reasonable alternatives or accommodations to keep employees and workplaces safe.

THE LAW CONCERNING CONSENT

Mandating employees to take COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of employment violates the fundamental tenet of medicine known as informed consent, and the Hippocratic medical maxim “do no harm”. A person cannot properly consent to a COVID-19 injection when they do so under duress and the threat of losing their job, freedoms, or livelihood.

Canadian courts have ruled that medical treatment without proper informed consent constitutes an assault. The relationship between the absence of consent and assault is encapsulated in the following quotes from the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 SCR 330, at paragraphs 28 and 36:

The rationale underlying the criminalization of assault explains this. Society is committed to protecting the personal integrity, both physical and psychological, of every individual. Having control over who touches one’s body, and how, lies at the core of human dignity and autonomy. The inclusion of assault … in the (Criminal) Code expresses society’s determination to protect the security of the person from any non-consensual contact or threats of force. The common law has recognized for centuries that the individual’s right to physical integrity is a fundamental principle, “every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner” …

To be legally effective, consent must be freely given. Therefore, even if the complainant consented, or … conduct raises a reasonable doubt about … non-consent, circumstances may arise which call into question what factors prompted … apparent consent. The Code defines a series of conditions under which the law will deem an absence of consent in cases of assault, notwithstanding the complainant’s ostensible consent or participation. As enumerated in s. 265(3), these include submission by reason of force, fear, threats, fraud or the exercise of authority, and codify the longstanding common law rule that consent given under fear or duress is ineffective: see G. Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd ed. 1983), at pp. 551-61. This section reads as follows:

265.. .
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.”

Section 346(1) of the Criminal Code also provides that “Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.”

Furthermore, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(a) (freedom of conscience and religion), Section 7 (the right to life, liberty, and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice), Section 12 (the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and Section 15 (the right to equality before and under the law and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination, and in particular, on the basis of religion, mental or physical disability), apply to the Proposed Policy. A person’s bodily autonomy is as basic as it gets in terms of rights, and our right to liberty and security of the person includes our right to refuse any medical treatment.

Canada is a signatory to the Nuremberg Code which states that voluntary informed consent is essential before performing a medical procedure on human beings. It also confirms that a person involved should have legal capacity to give consent, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an informed decision. Furthermore, in no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

Ms. Wanamaker, you are demanding that BCPS employees submit to receiving COVID-19 vaccines against their will and without their informed consent, or else face losing their ability to work and gain a livelihood. In doing so, you are also stripping away aspects of everyone’s inviolably guaranteed human dignity. The law is very clear that the use of threats, coercion or authority to force anyone to submit to any unwanted medical treatment is both unconstitutional and criminal. If it is the intention of the BCPS in its exercise of authority to do so by implementing the Proposed Policy you may wish to carefully reconsider.

AN AFFRONT TO DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

Ms. Wanamaker, considering the BCPS’ commitment to creating and ensuring a non-discriminatory and inclusive work environment, we are dismayed at the Proposed Policy and the callous and dismissive manner in which it has been communicated. Your announcement has put thousands of BCPS employees at risk of losing their entire livelihoods and their ability to provide for themselves and their families by presenting them with an unprecedented choice: either receive unwanted injections or face termination. Your announcement has left many of us feeling betrayed. It reinforces the notion that regardless of the amount of time, dedication, skills, knowledge, or expertise that a person possesses or has contributed to the BCPS, if they have made the decision not to disclose their personal medical information or inject a foreign substance into their body, then they are no longer welcome in the BCPS. Many of us have invested years of hard work and education and have carried a financial burden to pay for that education in order to build lifetime careers in the public service. It is astonishingly cruel that all of it could be stripped away by an arbitrary and short-sighted policy decision with the stroke of a pen.

Please understand this. We are loyal BCPS employees who have given years of service and have many more years to give. We wish to freely exercise our rights to medical privacy, bodily autonomy and fully informed consent. We represent and include: single parents and one-income families; primary income earners; people who are pregnant, nursing or wishing to conceive; people who are at low risk from COVID-19 and disproportionately high risk from vaccine injuries; people who have been injured by their first vaccine or previous vaccines; people who have witnessed loved-ones, friends and even co-workers suffer illness and injuries from these vaccines; people who have religious or conscientious objections to the ingredients in these vaccines, the methods by which they were developed, or to these medical treatments generally; people who do not have access to a family doctor or specialist to obtain a medical exemption; people who have medical conditions or are taking medications that have not been tested in combination with these vaccines; people who wish to live their lives free from unwanted medical interventions; people who have trauma associated with vaccines; people who wish to wait for more data or for more traditional vaccines to come to market; people with dependents who are concerned the vaccine may impact their abilities as caretakers. We also represent and include people who are deeply concerned about government overreach, privacy intrusions and about the dangerous precedent that the Proposed Policy would set, and who are concerned that this policy won’t end with two shots but may result in future ‘booster shot’ mandates or mandates for other vaccines or treatments.

It is painful and traumatic to hear your message that any of our deeply personal circumstances, concerns, beliefs or precautions are illegitimate and may be cast aside and overcome through threats, pressure and coercion. It is insulting to have our sincere and fact-based concerns summarily dismissed with the use of hollow slogans. Please be aware that your announcement on October 5th has caused severe stress, anxiety and worry to an extensive number of employees. The unexpected threat and uncertainty of losing our livelihoods and our ability to provide for our families or of facing other consequences is affecting our sleep, focus, concentration and ability to work. It is affecting our relationships, physical well-being and daily habits. Many employees are experiencing feelings of anger, despair, depression, distress, and even suicidal thoughts as they face an impossible choice. Your announcement has left many people feeling heartbroken, demoralized, isolated, silenced and ostracized.

Ms. Wanamaker, you will be familiar with the Misfire Report (Misfire: The 2012 Ministry of Health Employment Terminations and Related Matters). In the Misfire Report, the BC Office of the Ombudsperson commented on the importance of employment to an individual:

Canadian law has long recognized the importance of employment to a person’s sense of identity. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasised the importance of work in peoples’ lives in numerous wrongful dismissal cases. In Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act, the court wrote:

Work is one of the most fundamental aspects in a person’s life, providing the individual with a means of financial support and, as importantly, a contributory role in society. A person’s employment is an essential component of his or her sense of identity, self-worth and emotional well-being … In exploring the personal meaning of employment, Professor David M. Beatty, in his article “Labour is Not a Commodity,” in Studies in Contract Law (1980), has described it as follows, at p. 324:

As a vehicle which admits a person to the status of a contributing, productive, member of society, employment is seen as providing recognition of the individual’s being engaged in something worthwhile. It gives the individual a sense of significance. By realizing our capabilities and contributing in ways society determines to be useful, employment comes to represent the means by which most members of our community can lay claim to an equal right of respect and of concern from others. It is this institution through which most of us secure much of our self-respect and self-esteem.

As the Supreme Court of Canada has described, the manner in which employees are dismissed is of particular importance to those individuals:

… the manner in which employment can be terminated is equally important to an individual’s identity as the work itself … By way of expanding upon this statement, I note that the loss of one’s job is always a traumatic event. However, when termination is accompanied by acts of bad faith in the manner of discharge, the results can be especially devastating. In my opinion, to ensure that employees receive adequate protection, employers ought to be held to an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal

We ask you to consider how the Proposed Policy and the potential for forced leave without pay or termination of employees has and will personally and profoundly impact employees, and how it could reflect on government in light of the findings and recommendations of the Misfire Report. The recommendations are aimed at preventing the events that transpired, including the death of a wrongfully dismissed employee, from recurring.

Ms. Wanamaker, in your Executive Message to BCPS employees on March 1, 2021, you wrote:

“The BC Public Service should be a place where none of us ever feel unsafe; where none of the capable, qualified and deserving colleagues we work alongside are every denied opportunity; and where nobody in our team feels left out.”

While the BCPS holds itself out as an organization that is open and accepting of a diversity of beliefs, values and orientations, your Proposed Policy is outwardly targeting unvaccinated and non-disclosed employees, which may constitute grounds for discrimination and harassment. Please be aware that the vilification of the unvaccinated by multiple levels of government and the media has been hammered into the mindset of the general public over the past year. You have delivered a message that suggests that people who do not comply with the Proposed Policy and who wish to exercise private medical choices have done something wrong and are acting against the public interest. This message reinforces the stigmatization, isolation, bullying and harassment to which the unvaccinated and non-disclosed have been subjected.

We also wish to address your October 19th email in which you stated:

“We all took an oath that commits us to put the public interest ahead of our own personal interests. Vaccination against COVID-19 is without question in the public interest”.

You referred to the Oath of Employment and Standards of Conduct under the auspices of aligning them with the Proposed Policy. Your inference that by not accepting a medical procedure is akin to not following the Oath of Employment and/or the Standards of Conduct grossly misinterprets their true intent, which is to ensure employees conduct themselves appropriately in all aspects of the work environment. Ms. Wanamaker, as public service employees, we took the Oath to attest that we will provide to the best of our ability service in the public interest. The fact that the Standards of Conduct place “public interest over personal interest” is a social metric and construct, not a medical one. Service does not constitute accepting intrusions into our personal medical decisions or interference with our bodily autonomy, and none of us accepted this as a condition of employment. In our view, your reference to the Oath manipulates and misuses a trusted and sincere process.

In contrast, we believe that the Proposed Policy and coerced medical treatments with the threat of job consequences including termination undermines the public interest in several ways:

• First, it has deeply damaged employees’ confidence and trust in their employer, after months of reassurances that COVID-19 vaccines would not be mandatory and that our workplaces are safe, and it will create profound personal and financial hardship for every affected employee and their families.

• Second, should the BCPS place on leave or terminate hundreds or thousands of its employees on the basis of a single arbitrary and short-sighted policy decision, this will unquestionably severely affect the ability of the BCPS to provide services to British Columbians, not to mention the enormous time and costs that will be expended in order to replace those employees, and the loss of valuable institutional knowledge and experience that they possess.

• Third, the Proposed Policy will inevitably create an unnecessary burden on our other colleagues who will need to shoulder the increased work demands following the loss of employees to this policy.

In closing, Ms. Wanamaker, this letter is a direct appeal from BCPS employees to you, and we look forward to a timely reply to our questions and concerns set out in this letter. We are asking you to gather the moral courage within yourself to rescind and reverse course on this ill-conceived, unnecessary, unlawful, unconstitutional, discriminatory and unethical mandate.

Sincerely,

Concerned BCPS employees who stand for everyone’s rights to privacy and medical freedom, including BC General Employees’ Union members, Professional Employees Association members, and non-union BCPS employees, represented across BC Government Ministries,

• Advanced Education & Skills Training
• Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
• Attorney General
• Children and Family Development
• Citizens’ Services
• Education
• Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation
• Environment and Climate Change Strategy
• Finance
• Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development
• Health
• Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation
• Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation
• Labour
• Mental Health and Addictions
• Municipal Affairs
• Public Safety and Solicitor General & Emergency B.C.
• Social Development and Poverty Reduction
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Public Service Agency
• BC Wildfire Service
• Community Living BC

Contact: BCPS4freedom@protonmail.com

cc:

Honourable David Eby, QC, Attorney General and Minister responsible for Housing
Richard Fyfe, Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Minister responsible for Housing
Michael McEvoy, Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
Stephanie Smith, President, BC General Employees’ Union
Scott McCannell, Executive Director, Professional Employees Association

The post Open Letter to Lori Wanamaker, Head of the BC Public Service appeared first on BCPS Employees for Freedom Society.