While Canadian politicians continue to rightly condemn Russia for human rights abuses in Ukraine, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) maintains that unvaccinated Canadians do not deserve protection from discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The OHRC defends its abhorrent position on its website by citing a lack of precedent for protecting the unvaccinated from human rights abuses. They write, “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is voluntary. At the same time, the OHRC’s position is that a person who chooses not to be vaccinated based on personal preference does not have the right to accommodation under the Code. The OHRC is not aware of any tribunal or court decision that found a singular belief against vaccinations or masks amounted to a creed within the meaning of the Code.”

The policy statement was written on September 22, 2021, only three days after Ontario announced its vaccine passport system, which had previously been called a conspiracy theory by the mainstream media because the idea of the government discriminating based on vaccine status was deemed a ludicrous proposal only right-wing whack jobs would believe possible.

They were, of course, lying, and millions of Canadians have been excluded from society like African-Americans under Jim Crow, losing employment, the right to free movement within the country, the right to leave the country, and many other essential rights.

Moreover, it isn’t clear how there could be a precedent regarding vaccination status, as never before has such an objectionable policy on vaccine status been so ruthlessly enforced and affected so many Canadians.

“While the Code prohibits discrimination based on creed, personal preferences or singular beliefs do not amount to a creed for the purposes of the Code,” the OHRC continues.

In other words, it’s all semantics to them. Furthermore, they take no responsibility for the lack of protection for unvaccinated Canadians, deferring to other entities to make the call. Real useful institution…

According to the OHRC, what is a ‘creed’ is determined by courts and tribunals, with the OHRC saying the following would generally be considered a creed:

• Is sincerely, freely, and deeply held
• Is integrally linked to a person’s identity, self-definition, and fulfilment
• Is a particular and comprehensive, overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and practices
• Addresses ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and the existence or non-existence of a Creator and/or a higher or different order of existence
• Has some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief.

Weird. It seems that refusing the vaccine for the sake of following one’s personal belief in bodily autonomy and self-determination would fulfill some if not all of what’s considered a creed.

Regardless, there have also been many who have rejected the vaccine based on religious convictions, as some sincerely believe — and have good reason to — that mRNA vaccines were developed through the use of human fetal cell lines.

These religious convictions have also been brushed aside by the OHRC, and they haven’t protected anyone who has been fired for their vaccine status despite asking for a religious exemption.