Without a doubt, the courts that have had the most work navigating Covid-19 are our family law courts. Whether it was one parent intending to leave the Atlantic bubble, a situation where one parent was in a polyamorous relationship trying to figure out how many households were involved, decisions around schooling and so much more. Most recently, courts have been grappling with what to do about parents who disagree over whether children should be vaccinated or not.
Justice Pazaratz heard just such a case on February 18th in Ontario dealing with a shared custody situation with three children ages 14, 12, and 10. The eldest child chose to be vaccinated with the support of both parents. The younger two, however, have not been vaccinated and do not want to be. The father wants the court to order them vaccinated and the mother opposes this.
Justice Pazaratz is concerned with our culture
The reason I wanted to draw your attention to this case, however, is not because of how the judge resolves the case, but because of the way he addresses the broader conversations we are having as a culture. You see the father in arguing his case accuses the mother of supporting the People’s Party of Canada, perpetuating Covid-related conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy, and sharing views questioning the efficacy of the government’s Covid-19 policies. And he gives these as reasons why she shouldn’t be the decision-maker.
Justice Pazaratz was not impressed with these arguments, saying: “How is any of this relevant? Have we reached the stage where parental rights are going to be decided based on what political party you belong to?… Can you simply utter the words ‘conspiracy theorist’ and do a mic drop?”
This is a court of law, not the court of public opinion
He goes on obviously unimpressed with the tact taken by the father and concerned about the broader cultural trends including in the courts, “We’re seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, vilification and dismissive character assassination in family court. Presumably, we’re seeing it inside the courtroom because it’s rampant outside the courtroom. It now appears to be socially acceptable to denounce, punish and banish anyone who doesn’t agree with you. A chilling example: I recently had a case where a mother tried to cut off an equal-time father’s contact with his children, primarily because he was ’promoting anti-government beliefs.’ And in Communist China, that request would likely have been granted. But this is Canada and our judicial system has an obligation to keep it Canada.”
Justice Pazaratz makes it clear: the important factor is not the parent’s political affiliation or beliefs, but the best interests of the child. And labelling something as a conspiracy theory or misinformation is not a shortcut to avoid dealing with the information presented. For example, one of the documents put forward by the mother was a fact sheet from Pfizer. Hardly a fringe source. Should it be dismissed just because it doesn’t support the father’s beliefs?
A lesson to us all: listen
This is the crux of why I think this decision is so interesting. We live in a time where we dismiss people before even hearing their reasons. This was on display over the past few weeks when our Prime Minister refused to listen to the convoy, but instead persisted in mischaracterizing them as racists, misogynists, and the like. With leadership like that, it’s hardly surprising that we see this play out all across the country.
But this approach ignores the actual people – image-bearers of God and worthy of respect. And is it not effective at drawing people into real unity and harmony as a country. Such an approach, whether by our Prime Minister or in the courts doesn’t lead to justice and harmony, but to division and oppression.
And it’s lazy. As Justice Pazaratz says so well: “is ‘misinformation’ even a real word? Or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent? To de-legitimize questions and strategically avoid giving answers. Blanket denials are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system. Each party always has the onus to prove their case and yet ‘misinformation’ has crept into the court lexicon. A childish – but sinister – way of saying ‘You’re so wrong, I don’t even have to explain why you’re wrong.’”
We’re all called to treat people better. Whether they are our brothers and sisters, our neighbours, people on social media, or parents in a legal matter. We would all do well to take Justice Pazaratz’s challenge to heart.
And, in case you were wondering, Justice Pazaratz concludes: “It’s irrelevant to my decision and it’s none of anyone’s business. But I am fully vaccinated. My choice. I mention this because I am acutely aware of how polarized the world has become. We should all return to discussing the issues rather than making presumptions about one another.”
It’s not a hard decision to read through and I’d recommend it. You can find it here.
Tabitha Ewert serves as the legal counsel for WNAL and ARPA Canada
The Freedom Convoy rolling into Ottawa at this very minute has attracted the attention of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, including Reformed Christians. Started by truckers to protest the federal government’s mandate that truckers must be fully vaccinated to cross the border, this protest – like virtually every large demonstration – has attracted people with a wide variety of goals and plans to achieve those goals.
The common thread for this convoy, though, is freedom. Within Christian circles, freedom is almost always considered to be positive. But freedom, popularly defined as the ability to do what we want, is neither good nor bad. Freedom understood this way allows people to act upon the desires of their hearts, desires which may be sinful due to our depraved human nature or which may be good due to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
For example, people have a great deal of freedom to marry who they want in Canada. From a Christian perspective, this freedom is positive for Joe and Sally, a young Christian couple who wish to be married to each other in the LORD, but it is negative freedom for Adam and Steve, two men who desire to be married to each other by the state. Existing restrictions on the freedom of whom you can marry, such as the prohibition on incestuous or polygamous marriages, are positive restrictions according to Scripture.
This is because true freedom, in the words of Lord Acton, is not the freedom to do what we want, but the ability to do what we ought.
This is the lens through which Christians should consider the Freedom Convoy. Is the goal of this protest to agitate for the freedom to do whatever we want, or the freedom to do what we ought? Biblical “oughts” include attending corporate worship services, caring for the sick and the lonely, and working to provide for yourself, your family, and those in need.
Freedom “wants” might include going to movie theatres or restaurants without having to be vaccinated or wearing a mask. In these instances, it is good to check our hearts for our motives. Are we genuinely concerned the government is overstepping its biblically-mandated authority? Or are we just really wanting to go grab a burger or watch Spiderman: No Way Home? In other words, are we acting according to the God-given pattern for society or the self-given pattern for our own life?
Participants in the Freedom Convoy are advocating for all of the above: the ability to do what we ought to do, the ability to do what we want, and perhaps even the ability to do what we ought not to do. From what I can tell, the general purpose of the convoy – to protest lockdowns and vaccine mandates generally – is to primarily defend the ability to do as we ought, with a lot of freedom of as we want thrown in too. Unfortunately, there is no way to separate the efforts to preserve the freedom to do what we ought from the efforts to regain the ability to do what we want, or even what we ought not to do. It’s simply not possible for the rest of the world to realize that an individual might stand for certain truths represented by this movement but are skeptical of its other goals.
This is where our presence matters. In a world when political movements and political parties and political figures are a mixture of good and bad, it will be very rare that we will be able to be 100% behind a movement, party, or person. But too often our solution is to sit on the sidelines instead of actively trying to shape the future for the better.
So, consider being a part of the Freedom Convoy and prayerfully help direct this energy for good rather than letting those with motivations that are not God-glorifying motives lead it. Support the call for governments to withdraw vaccine mandates and loosen lockdowns; refute the narrative that the government is trying to sterilize the people through vaccination. Participate in peaceful protest; deter those who would support violent protest. Let your speech be seasoned with salt and let your attitude reflect genuine respect for the authority God has placed over Canada; dissuade those chanting “f— Trudeau.”
Through it all, may our actions be guided not by a selfish desire to do whatever we want to do, but a godly desire to do what we ought to do.
The Ontario Legislature often returns from their summer break in mid-September and continues with the work they had started before the break. But, with the federal election in full swing this September, the government chose to prorogue the legislature (end the current session) and return on October 4th with a new session. So, following the extended break, with the provincial election in June 2022 coming into sight, the Ontario Legislature has been quite busy over the past month. Some of this activity is particularly worth noting.
Every new session of the Legislature begins with a speech from the throne. In the speech, where the government can share their priorities, the government once again emphasized the importance of prioritizing health and long-term care moving forward. The opposition is also keen to share their priorities leading up to the election and many of their private members’ bills also have a focus on health and long-term care. Over 35 bills have been introduced in the past few weeks. Some of these prioritize important policies which align with various recommendations in ARPA Canada’s recent elder care policy report. Others focus on more concerning policy options.
Long-Term Care
When a legislature is prorogued, all bills that have not been passed need to start the process over. This was the case with the More Than a Visitor Act. MPP Lisa Gretzky has re-introduced this bill which recognizes the value of care from family and friends for residents in a formal care setting. This bill, if passed, would allow designated caregivers to visit residents in congregate care settings, to provide physical and tangible support – even during a pandemic. The More Than a Visitor Act has been reintroduced as Bill 19. As when this bill was first introduced, we encourage you to send an EasyMail to your MPP in support of this legislation.
Another of ARPA’s elder care recommendations is that governments work with care homes to develop minimum staffing requirements for long-term care. Bill 14, the Time to Care Act, seeks to ensure that long-term care residents have at least four hours a day of nursing and personal support services. Last year, the government committed to having this in place by 2024-25 and shows the same priority in recent long-term care legislation. Last year, the Ontario Long-Term Care COVID-19 Commission also provided recommendations to the government, many of which were in line with ARPA Canada’s recommendations on Elder Care. Another private member’s bill, Bill 4, seeks to ensure that the Ontario government implements those recommendations and reports on the progress being made.
Vaccinations
Bill 6, the Jobs and Jabs Act, is another private member’s bill that many Ontarians have been paying attention to. This bill would prohibit employers from intimidating or dismissing employees based on their vaccination status or their refusal to disclose vaccination status. On the surface, the intent of the bill is helpful, with its desire to ensure that employees are not penalized based on their personal medical decisions. However, we also ought to be concerned when the government tells private businesses who they can and cannot fire. Because the legislature randomly draws ballots for when private members’ bills will be discussed, this bill will not be on the agenda for 2nd reading until March 2022.
Protests
There are also two different private members bills that seek to ban COVID-19 protests outside of hospitals and other health facilities. This is concerning because Ontarians should be allowed to protest if they choose, as long as they are not breaking existing laws around obstruction, trespassing, or other misbehaviours. You can read some further commentary on this topic here. If you are concerned about this, you can also send an EasyMail to your MPP here.
Gender
Another bill of concern is Bill 17, the Gender Affirming Health Care Advisory Committee Act. This bill seeks to create an advisory committee that would make recommendations to the Minister of Health with regards to “improving access to and coverage for gender-affirming health care.” The bill goes on to define gender-affirming health care as “procedures, medical treatments and referral processes that align a patient’s body and physical presentation with their gender identity.” Recommendations from the committee would likely include things like improving access and coverage for procedures related to gender transition, expanding OHIP coverage for various sex-change treatments, and how to “define gender-affirming health care procedures as lifesaving procedures.”
Bill 17 explicitly promotes and normalizes sex-change surgeries and other medical procedures and treatments for gender dysphoria, instead of supporting body-affirming counselling for those who struggle with their gender and sexuality. The Gender Affirming Health Care Advisory Committee Act has already passed second reading with all-party support and has been forwarded to the Standing Committee on Social Policy for further study.
Stay Tuned
We mention just a few of the current bills on the Ontario agenda to look at some of the priorities that MPPs have been promoting with the return of the Legislature. We can continue to encourage our elected representatives to promote positive elder care, including prioritizing the involvement of family caregivers and ensuring adequate staffing ratios in long-term care homes. At the same time, we can point out areas of concern where our MPPs do not view the role of the government correctly, or where they have an improper understanding of healthcare and its purposes. As some of these bills progress, we will provide updates and action items as necessary.
In a concerning development, the government of New Brunswick, through its latest Covid-19 restrictions, now requires churches to choose one of two paths for corporate worship. One path requires churches to require proof of full vaccination for anyone who comes to worship and participate at the communion table. If a church agrees to enforce a vaccine passport policy, then those who enter there are not required to physically distance, there are no capacity limits, and congregants can sing while masked. There is another path for churches who believe their congregation should not be segregated and refuse to require full proof of vaccination as a condition of corporate worship or to access the sacraments. For those churches, the rules prohibit singing, impose a 50% seating limit with social distancing, and require a fixed seating plan among other things. Similarly, Manitoba’s latest restrictions include this distinction: “Faith-based indoor gatherings have been reduced to 25 people or 33% capacity… faith-based gatherings can take place without restrictions for fully vaccinated people.”
These are the first instances we have seen in Canada where provincial governments are applying the Covid-19 vaccine passports to churches. We are grateful that no other provincial government to date has done so, but we are concerned other provinces may follow suit.
Imposing vaccine passports on worship services unnecessarily infringes on the separation of church and state
ARPA Canada believes that the civil government should not impose vaccine requirements on worship services nor require churches to impose vaccine requirements as a condition for attending worship. In a piece we recently released, we said:
“The civil government does not have authority from God to determine who comes to worship. The call to come is free and open to all. It is in corporate worship that the keys of the kingdom are clearly exercised: the preaching of the gospel (including through the administration of the sacraments) and church discipline. These keys are given to the church, not the state.”
Participating in gathered, assembled worship is the obligation of every individual at the call of the elders. It is not a permitted activity bestowed on the bride of Christ at the discretion of the civil government. The civil government is given authority by God to pursue public justice (Romans 13), but it is the church who holds the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 28:18-20) including determining when and in what manner worship is to take place. The church, then, “governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and regarding Jesus Christ as the only Head.” (Belgic Confession, Article 29). That is, the church must recognize that it is Jesus as their head who determines who may come to worship – not the civil government.
We go on to say:
“There are Scriptural reasons and standards by which someone could be denied admission by church leaders. One reason relates to contagious diseases, but the standard for denying access to the assembly of God on the grounds of a contagious disease is set through careful consideration of a variety of scriptural principles by the church elders and not by the civil government.”
Ceding that authority to determine who may come to worship is a case of rendering unto Caesar what is God’s.
A choice that’s not really a meaningful choice
We can be thankful at least that New Brunswick and Manitoba are not imposing the vaccine passports directly on churches, treating the church and corporate worship like restaurants or movie theatres. Had provincial governments picked this route, the issue would be much more clear-cut. Instead, these provincial governments have given churches the choice between vaccine passports and very few restrictions or no vaccine passports with much greater restrictions.
It should be noted that the choice offered to churches isn’t really a meaningful choice at all. As one Christian nurse put it, the church is the emergency room for the soul. And just like the ER at the hospital where she works accepts all patients who need help, whether they are smokers or obese or unvaccinated, so the church needs to tend to the souls of all who come to the door for help, whether they are vaccinated or not.
Even if 100% of their members are vaccinated, a church that does not verify vaccination status and is open to guests who may possibly be unvaccinated would be stuck in the “unvaccinated” category with severe restrictions on corporate worship. This doesn’t mean their worship service is filled with unvaccinated people. Rather, the worship service would be comprised of people whose vaccine status is simply unknown. And the likelihood that 100% of the members of a church are vaccinated is very slim anyway. The unity of the church, particularly manifest at the Lord’s Supper table and experienced in corporate worship, has a very low tolerance for segregation. Any separation must be rooted in Scriptural principles.
We encourage a response
We are encouraged to see many provinces refraining from imposing vaccine passports on churches. British Columbia, which had treated churches very poorly from November to May, is now treating churches with much more respect. That’s worth acknowledging and applauding. And this is due, in part, to Christian leaders (and others) carefully, thoughtfully engaging with political leaders behind the scenes in that province. Praise God for listening ears! So far, Alberta and Ontario seem reluctant to impose a vaccine mandate on churches as well. But we shouldn’t just assume it will stay this way.
ARPA staff have heard about many churches already writing to provincial leaders, thanking them for not applying the vaccines to churches and urging the provinces to hold the line on this. This is great news! Being proactive against divisive policies is necessary. The social and spiritual health and unity of local communities – including religious communities – have profound public health benefits. The healthier and more united churches are, the more these churches can bless the communities in which God has placed them.
Whether you’re an office-bearer or not, you should speak up on this issue in encouraging and winsome ways. We have seen over the past 18 months a consistent lack of understanding by our culture of the role of the church. Rather than wait for more problems to develop, this is a key time to enlighten our government of what the church is, what worship is, and why vaccine passports are an unacceptable policy. This is also a good time to offer prayer and encouragement to these representatives during this very difficult time. Combining your request with a token of appreciation (like a bouquet of flowers or a large collection of cards and coloured pictures from young children in the congregation) can go a long way to building a mutually respectful relationship with a local member of your provincial legislature.
We communicate with our governments in the knowledge that He who sits enthroned in heaven is in control and actively working on our behalf. And so, as you undoubtedly already do, continue to practice the exhortation of Paul “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior” (I Tim 2:1-3).
May we continue to have the freedom to worship our God according to His Word, and may the unity and courage of the bride of Christ be a witness to our country of the sure hope we have.
Several provincial governments have rolled out vaccine passports and/or require proof of vaccination against Covid-19 to attend events or enter “non-essential” spaces like gyms, restaurants, and theatres. Some provincial leaders have publicly mused about requiring proof of vaccination for church attendance. Both Manitoba and New Brunswick have developed a system where worship services have little or no restrictions if proof of vaccination is required. Alternatively, places of worship are required to operate at reduced capacity and implement increased restrictions if no proof of vaccination is required in those provinces. Federally, our prime minister is adamant that his government will require Covid-19 vaccination for federally regulated employees and for travel by plane or train. And many businesses, universities, and other government and non-government institutions are also requiring vaccination as a condition of employment or to be on their premises.
There are two separate policy issues here: vaccine passports and mandatory vaccines. Although distinct, they raise similar underlying concerns for us. ARPA Canada’s stance is that coercive vaccine mandates (directly as a condition of employment despite having bona fides reasons to not be vaccinated, for example, or indirectly though vaccine passports) are bad public policy. That conclusion, on its own, doesn’t determine whether we should submit to the policy. But we believe such a coercive policy does more harm than good and would be particularly wrong if imposed on churches. Let’s start with the issue of churches first.
Imposing vaccine mandates on churches is wrong
Elders of the church are given the authority and responsibility to call members of the local church together for corporate worship. When the people of God gather together, they are not segregated: there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Colossians 3:11-17, see also 1 Corinthians 10:17). In other words, civil government does not have authority from God to determine who comes to worship. The call to come is free and open to all. It is in corporate worship that the keys of the kingdom are clearly exercised: the preaching of the gospel (including through the administration of the sacraments) and church discipline. These keys are given to the church, not the state. While the civil government may put reasonable limits on numbers within a building (fire codes, etc.) they cannot dictate the types of people who can gather for worship of God.
This is not to suggest that there is never a reason for someone to be denied admission to corporate worship. There are Scriptural reasons and standards by which someone could be denied admission by church leaders. One reason relates to contagious diseases but the standard for denying access to the assembly of God on the grounds of a contagious disease is set through careful consideration of a variety of scriptural principles by the church elders and not by the civil government.
Furthermore, as Dr. Ted Fenske writes in a beautifully honest self-evaluation, for many of us Christians, our emotions of fear and of hope have been misplaced. We have generally exhibited an excessive fear of Covid-19 (or of tyranny or of vaccines) despite our confession that we belong in life and death to a faithful saviour Jesus Christ, who promises us eternal life, and repeatedly tells us to fear the Lord and not our circumstances. And we have generally misplaced our hopes in vaccines, as wonderful as the medical technology may be, to rescue us (or misplaced hope in the Charter, or courts or certain politicians), despite our hope being built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. If there is any place that these misplaced fears and hopes can be corrected, it will be in the church, under faithful gospel preaching, united despite our differences at the table of fellowship. For the civil government to dictate whom the church may (not) admit is a clear step too far and should be resisted by the church.
Coercing citizens to take a vaccine is bad public policy
Not only would imposing vaccine passports or mandates on churches be wrong, imposing coercive vaccination policies on the general public is also bad public policy for a few reasons:
- Convince, don’t coerce. Good public policy in this case should, as much as possible, convince the majority of people to get on board through education and awareness. While a civil government can promote and encourage healthy diet, it can’t require obese citizens to take diet pills. People need to understand and accept the public good of a policy decision for it to be maximally effective. Forcing citizens into decisions, particularly a decision that directly impacts what they put into their bodies, is likely to further anger and alienate those who were hesitant or outright resistant.
- Freedom of conscience (enumerated as a fundamental freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter) should be respected. As ARPA Canada details in a forthcoming policy report on freedom of conscience, to violate a person’s conscience is to do violence to their integrity. Both within the Church and outside it, some people are compelled by conscience to get the Covid-19 vaccine or to refuse it. The conscience is a moral compass which helps people act according to their beliefs of right and wrong. It judges one’s own conduct and is ultimately accountable to God. It is wrong for a person to disobey their conscience, to do what they believe to be wrong (1 Corinthians 10:23-33). Exemptions for religious, medical, or conscientious reasons can be obtained for other mandatory vaccinations within Canada such as those for children enrolled in school. Similar exemptions should be available for the Covid-19 vaccine as well (this currently varies from province to province).
- Bodily autonomy is important. Christians who are outspoken against abortion and euthanasia might shy away from an argument for bodily autonomy. But there is a significant difference: in abortion, we are talking about the intentional killing of another human being, the preborn child. Regarding euthanasia, Christians have long drawn a clear line between intentionally killing a patient (immoral) and a patient refusing medical treatment (a moral option, depending on intent). Vaccination falls into that latter category – a moral option that a person can choose to refuse.
- Christian thought has long held that decisions around what we put into our bodies (diet, medicine) are personal decisions for which adults are responsible directly to God. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19) and we need to take care of it (see Q&A 105 of the Heidelberg Catechism, Matthew 4:7). If a person is genuinely concerned that getting the vaccine will do more harm than good or that getting the vaccine is otherwise unwise, unethical, or morally wrong, they must be convinced, not coerced, of the opposite view. And if they cannot be convinced, then less violence is done by respecting that choice than coercing the individual to take the vaccine. The Supreme Court of Canada’s rulings on medical decision making (under section 7 of the Charter, the right to life, liberty and security of the person) have so far supported this principle.
- Having said that, Christians are not only responsible to God, but also to other people, whether neighbours or other office holders (elders, employers, etc.). The church may discipline someone who ingests too much alcohol for unrepentant drunkenness. Your employer may fire you for operating machinery while intoxicated with marijuana. So, though nobody should force you to put medicine or food into your body, it does not necessarily mean there should be no consequences for your choices of what (not) to ingest. In the context of the Covid-19 vaccine, an employer may feel that vaccinating her employees is the best course of action. Such an employer should be free to encourage all employees to be vaccinated, and even insist on it subject only to reasonable or bona fides exceptions which should be accommodated as much as possible.
- Mandating vaccines across the board runs roughshod over the exceptional cases. We saw something similar with mask mandates where, for months, the needs of people with hearing impairment or breathing difficulties were ignored or even harassed by service providers or members of the public. With broad mandates, we should expect the same kind of treatment for the minority of people who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons or reasons of conscience. British Columbia’s plan to disallow medical, religious, or conscientious exemption to the vaccine mandate is particularly concerning.
- Good public policy will prefer a least restrictive or invasive means to substantially achieve the policy goal: rapid tests, for example, are less invasive and, for some people, preferred over the vaccine. Not only that, but rapid tests are arguably more effective: a person who is not carrying the virus cannot pass it on, whereas a vaccinated person has a (very slim) possibility of carrying and passing on the virus. Such an approach will also differentiate between the ambivalent who have simply not bothered getting a vaccine out of laziness, and those who have wrestled with the question and have a bona fides reason not to take the vaccine.
- People should, subject to certain limits required by justice, be free to associate or not associate with whomever they wish, including in commercial or business settings. A store should be free to serve vaccinated and unvaccinated people if they choose. But if a restaurant or theatre freely decides they only want to allow vaccinated people in their space (subject to employment and human rights law considerations) then so be it. These decisions should be made by the private institutions, not under pressure from the civil government.
Let’s boil it down: what are we allowing in principle if we support or allow a coercive mandatory vaccination program? In principle, we would be affirming that the civil government has the power to coerce a minority of the population to inject a foreign substance into their bodies, a particular substance that the minority believes (rightly or wrongly) is either unsafe, unethical, or immoral. This is a bad precedent and should be opposed.
So, what do we do?
These coercive policies are having real-world consequences for Canadians. Some people are expecting to lose their jobs while others may be forgoing post-secondary education, as just two examples. Anger and resentment is festering. It is very apparent that we are living in a different social and political-legal climate than just two years ago. Yet, as Paul says, “We are perplexed, but not driven to despair.” God is sovereign and He still affords us many opportunities to shine the light of the gospel into our communities. Here follow some initial thoughts at what you can do at this time:
- Whether vaccinated or not, if you agree that coercive vaccination policies will do more harm than good, your elected representatives need to hear from you. Please use our EasyMail system to send a note to your MLA or MPP (copied to the premier and the public health officer of your province). Even better, give them a phone call. Thank them for their work and encourage them to not impose vaccine mandates on churches. Urge them to respect personal medical decisions and protect the privacy of their citizens. And remind them that you are praying for them. Always engage respectfully, realizing that their task is a difficult one, in which they are required to weigh public health policy with individual freedom and responsibility.
- Start a community conversation by writing a Letter to the Editor of you local paper. Make use of ARPA Canada’s EasyLetter system which will give you contact information for those editors, as well as tips on writing your letter.
- For those who are vaccinated, your voice is important in defending your brothers and sisters who believe they cannot be vaccinated, at least not at this time, whether for medical, moral, or other reasons. Speak up for them, even if you disagree with their reasons.
- For those who risk losing their job: if you are a member of a union, check with your union rep and seek help with filing a grievance. If not unionized, you may want to call a lawyer. Employment law requires “reasonable accommodation to the point of undue hardship” for claims grounded in religion or disability. For example, an accommodation might be to have a regular Covid-19 test instead, or to work in an area with low in-person contact. If you were fired, you should have received a compensation package. If not, you may want to ask about it.
- For those who have started university this fall and cannot be vaccinated: you probably have a choice to either do remote learning for a(nother) year, or to defer your studies for a year. Some universities are not requiring proof of vaccination, so you might consider a transfer. Other universities are allowing for medical exemptions and/or exemptions under the Human Rights Code. The Code protects against discrimination based on “creed” which those who conscientiously object to vaccination might be able to rely upon. You can ask for an exemption from the university on those grounds.
- For those who are barred from accessing “non-essential services” like restaurants, movie theatres, certain forms of travel, and so on, be patient. To be a conscientious objector doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ever have to suffer inconvenience from time to time. That said, for those with a medical exemption, you may have a discrimination claim on the basis of disability. However, pursuing such a claim will be onerous.
- Finally, for those who have not been vaccinated, if you have no medical, ethical or conscientious reason not to be vaccinated, and you face the prospect of not being able to access certain services, it is a legitimate choice to get the vaccine. We should oppose the government mandating the Covid-19 vaccine, but it is legitimate for you to decide that your best course of action is to get the shot.
Living in Canada today comes with increasing challenges. There is a gathering storm around many of the issues and institutions we care about. This latest development around vaccine mandates might feel like the storm is only gathering strength. About this gathering storm one author writes, “[Christians] have a real and undeniable political responsibility. We bear a real cultural responsibility. We may not produce the culture, but we operate in the culture and are stewards of the gospel in our cultural context. We have many responsibilities as Christians, but we have one gospel hope – the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our hope does not rest with temporal victory – though it understands the importance of politics – it rests in the One who sits at the right hand of the throne of God.”
All of these developments are within His power and hand. Jesus promises to protect and care for His church. We can move forward in confidence, resting in the assurance that nothing can move Him from the throne.
ARPA Canada’s response does not weigh in on the question of the efficacy or safety of the Covid-19 vaccine. We encourage our readers to speak with their own doctor or to a Christian doctor or nurse in their community about the vaccine. Dr. Ted Fenske, a Christian cardiologist in Edmonton, AB, wrote a thorough article on vaccines expressly for a Christian audience back in December 2020, which may be a good place to start.
And we welcome your feedback! There are strong differences of opinion on this issue so please do be charitable in your critique. If this article was helpful, let us know. And if there are ways to improve or strengthen it, we’d love to hear from you too.
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski, October 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A researcher with Merck Pharmaceutical who helped develop the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, has revealed that the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and may cause more illness than the disease they are intended to prevent.
ARPA Note: Medicine isn’t our expertise so we have to rely on the findings of others to help inform us about the Swine Flu Vaccine hysteria. For another article that challenges most of the claims about the vaccine that we hear from the mainstream media, click here.
By Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, The Atlantic, November 2009: Why then has the federal government stockpiled millions of doses of antivirals, at a cost of several billion dollars? And why are physicians being encouraged to hand out prescriptions to large numbers of people, without sound evidence that the drugs will help? The short answer may be that public-health officials feel they must offer something, and these drugs are the only possible remedies at hand. [Read the entire report from the Atlantic by clicking here.]