Mon Aug 30, 2021 - 2:20 pm EDT ONTARIO, Canada (Catholicuprising.org) — The following is a 2-part, 19-point essay about the experimental COVID-19 inoculations, offering legal and medical arguments against mandating their use in Canada. PART 1 – LAW 1. Nuremberg Code – Coercing Canadian citizens into accepting an injection contradicts the Nuremberg Code which requires voluntary and informed consent to any medical treatment: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, 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 to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. (Nuremberg Code, 1) In addition to the Nuremberg Code, there are other international agreements which coerced vaccination programs contravene including the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) and the Helsinki Declaration (1964). 2. Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Coercing persons into accepting an injection contradicts the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees all Canadians the freedom of conscience and religion (Article 2) and the right to right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (Article 7). Therefore, the practice of mandated vaccines is in contravention to the Charter. In particular, it is contrary to the “security of the person”. Security of the person includes a person’s right to control his or her own bodily integrity. It will be engaged where the state interferes with personal autonomy and a person’s ability to control his or her own physical or psychological integrity, for example by… imposing unwanted medical treatment (R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 56; Carter, supra; Rodriguez, supra; Blencoe, supra at paragraph 55; A.C., supra, at paragraphs 100-102). (33) One of the basic fundamental proofs of freedom is the idea that we, as individual persons, and not some other actor, have control over our own bodies within prescribed moral limits. If one does not have bodily autonomy, one does not have freedom. If coercion is used to force a vaccine into our bodies, we don’t have principal stewardship of our own bodies any longer. Someone else does; namely, the State. If we lose this basic principle, we lose our individual liberties in their most basic and rudimentary form. To relinquish this basic, necessary, and fundamental right, is to open Canadian society to the real risk of losing other fundamental and inalienable rights to totalitarian movements under the guise of health care or another “emergency”. 3. Canadian Case Law – In Canada, informed consent to medical interventions – including vaccines – is the law. (See Cuthbertson vs Rasouli 2013-10-18; 2013 SCC 53). The Court ruled: “The patient’s consent must be given voluntarily and must be informed.” (42) 4. Non-Genetic Discrimination Act (2017) – This federal legislation explicitly prohibits any person from undergoing any genetic test as a condition of employment and other contracts. The legislation states quite clearly: “It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to undergo a genetic test as a condition of (a) providing goods or services to that individual; (b) entering into or continuing a contract or agreement with that individual; or (c) offering or continuing specific terms or conditions in a contract or agreement with that individual.” The PCR test would be considered a genetic test as defined by the Act in relation to Bill S-201, Statues of Canada 2017: “An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination” which defines a “genetic test” to mean any test that analyzes DNA, RNA, or chromosomes for purposes assessing risks of transmission of diseases, or for monitoring, diagnosis, or prognosis. So, in other words, requiring COVID tests as a condition of employment is illegal. Penalties for breaching this law are particularly punitive, reaching as high as one million dollars and imprisonment up to five years. (47) 5. The Ontario Health Care Consent Act, 1996 – This legislation also prohibits any treatment which does not involve consent (Cf. Article 10). (43) 6. Ontario Human Rights Code – Article 1 of the OHRC protects employees on the basis of Creed. According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission: “The right to be free from discrimination based on creed reflects core Canadian constitutional values and commitments to a secular, multicultural and democratic society. People who follow a creed, and people who do not, have the right to live in a society that respects pluralism and human rights and the right to follow different creeds.” (52) a. Moral (Religious) – These vaccines have used aborted fetal cell lines in their development and testing. Therefore, they represent a direct attack on the dignity of the human person. Many religious traditions, undergirded by basic science, believe that life starts at the moment of conception, and therefore to these groups, the development of these particular vaccines represents an anthropological regression of humanity. For those persons, therefore, who oppose this immoral practice and are being coerced into being its beneficiary, it is a direct violation of their consciences and, as such, can never be tolerated by a free and just society which must uphold the genuine conscientious rights of its citizens.