Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC) announced in October 2019, that it is challenging the constitutional validity of mandatory vaccination laws in Ontario, including the Immunization of School Pupils Act (ISPA) and Child Care and Early Years Act (CCEYA).
The legal challenge is being brought on the basis that these laws are inconsistent with, or infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forms part of the Canadian Constitution.
Good Luck VCC – we’re rooting for you.
If you haven’t done so already, you should also make the time to watch the latest episode of Under the Wire, which featured an interview with VCC President, Ted Kuntz.
As Australia does not have a charter of rights of any kind – the only liberal democracy which doesn’t – the opportunity to legally challenge the validity of our mandatory vaccination laws on such grounds is not available to us.
The human rights charters adopted in Victoria, A.C.T., and recently Queensland – whilst ensuring that ministerial and other administrative decisions are consistent with the protection of human rights – are not binding on the parliament itself. As a result, under these models, the parliament is still permitted to enact laws which violate human rights, which we witnessed first-hand with the enactment of the Victorian ‘No Jab, No Play’ law in 2015.
In 2016, the AVN received advice from a leading QC in constitutional law, that there are currently no grounds to challenge the constitutional validity of ‘No Jab, No Pay’, despite the fact the law is not necessary, proportionate, or for a legitimate health/public health purpose.
An Australian charter of rights, depending on the model adopted, would provide us with our day in court.
Stay tuned for a series of articles we will be publishing in the coming months about the Australian Constitution, Australia’s human rights framework, the differences between a constitutional charter of rights and a legislative charter of rights, and our preferred model.