Vaccine Choice Canada (formerly VRAN) continues the work ofВ the Committee Against Compulsory Vaccination, started byВ Ontario parents inВ 1982 inВ protest ofВ the Immunization ofВ School Pupils Act, which failed toВ include provisions for exemption from vaccines for reasons ofВ conscience, orВ sincerely held beliefs. With the assistance ofВ numerous Members ofВ the Ontario Legislature, and the then recently entrenched Charter ofВ Rights and Freedoms, weВ succeeded inВ winning anВ amendment toВ the Act which guarantees all residents ofВ Ontario the right toВ conscientious orВ religious exemption from vaccines for their school age children. The amendment was written into the Act inВ December, 1984.
OnВ March 28th several members ofВ our committee met withВ Dr. Carlson andВ Dr. Lang toВ discuss our concerns about the compulsory immunization law inВ Ontario. They said that they would bring our concerns toВ those inВ the Ministry ofВ Health who are responsible for government policy and they agreed that aВ written statement from our group would also beВ forwarded toВ those same officials. WeВ feel that aВ fair reading ofВ our position might place the current policy inВ aВ new light. There was noВ real possibility for the public toВ make any submissions before the bill became law, asВ the law was passed with uncharacteristic swiftness. There was noВ debate inВ the legislature and there has been noВ substantive discussion ofВ this issue inВ the media inВ Ontario. WeВ certainly hope there isВ aВ possibility for aВ reappraisal ofВ this law which represents anВ unnecessary infringement ofВ our civil liberties and another unfortunate interference byВ the government inВ our lives.
The Committee Against Compulsory Vaccination consists mainly ofВ parents inВ Ontario who object toВ atВ least one ofВ the vaccinations now required byВ law. WeВ also have many supporters among those who favour such procedures but who object toВ the government requiring citizens toВ give specific medications toВ their children against their will. WeВ have emphasized our opposition toВ the compulsory nature ofВ the legislation rather than toВ the vaccinations themselves and weВ will continue toВ doВ so. For usВ the question ofВ civil liberties isВ the most important aspect ofВ this issue. WeВ have, nevertheless, done considerable research into the medical side ofВ this question and weВ are very concerned about the many negative aspects ofВ such aВ mass vaccination program. Thus, though our first purpose isВ toВ protect the rights ofВ parents toВ decide such questions for themselves and for their children, weВ feel weВ have anВ additional responsibility toВ publicize the significant dangers and problems ofВ these procedures toВ aВ public which has been woefully uninformed byВ both the government and the medical establishment.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
— William Pitt, Nov. 18, 1783
“Were the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now….It is our error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“A general state education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.”
— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
The essential feature ofВ aВ free society isВ the principle that government isВ not free toВ make laws onВ whatever matter itВ chooses. There are certain spheres ofВ activity which are the legitimate concerns ofВ government, which weВ can designate asВ the legal realm. The content ofВ all laws should beВ justice orВ equity, and the principle which applies inВ this realm isВ equality. AsВ true government would reflect aВ real consensus ofВ the governed onВ those issues, which are properly decided onВ the basis ofВ each citizen having anВ equal say, the present form ofВ government byВ experts and bureaucrats isВ not even legitimate inВ the sphere where government should beВ appropriate. But there are other spheres ofВ activity which must never come under the jurisdiction ofВ government. InВ these areas the principle ofВ equality isВ not appropriate atВ all. The new Canadian Charter ofВ Rights and Freedoms, the U.S. Bill ofВ Rights, the thoughts ofВ many ofВ the great thinkers ofВ the West, and the traditions ofВ democratic government have all recognized some ofВ the necessary limitations onВ government authority, where, inВ general, the principle ofВ equality isВ not appropriate. They all are critical ofВ laws which infringe onВ the basic rights ofВ the individual.
They recognize the unique and essential role which human freedom has toВ play inВ society today. The freedom and dignity ofВ the individual must beВ inviolable inВ aВ truly free society.
The individual should, therefore, be free to decide questions of conscience and belief. Despite the ever increasing power of the government, there is still significant reluctance to infringe upon this realm by imposing society’s beliefs and cultural goals on everyone. In fact, the entire sphere of human culture — the total spiritual activity of all individuals — does not belong to the jurisdiction of the state. Spiritual, scientific, religious, artistic, medical and other questions of belief, conscience, or knowledge cannot be decided by means of voting or by other majoritarian methods. The human spirit must not be shackled by the state. Only when such questions affect the rights of others, as for example, when a school has a policy of racial discrimination, only then should the state interfere in the cultural realm. One could think of other examples, but in this realm the state should only enact negative legislation. We are not «free» to do just anything. The state can certainly tell us what we cannot do (and especially when it truly represents the consensus of the governed), but it has no business telling us what we must think, believe, read, eat or what medicines we and our children must take. Such imposed conformity is antithetical to the ideals of a free society. The state acts completely illegitimately when, for instance, it compels us all to accept the tenets of a particular religion. And the government acts with equal illegitimacy when it decides what particular medical point of view all individuals in society must accept and adopt. Such a question is in the realm of culture and there are, understandably, a great variety of opinions about which methods are best as there are varieties of opinions on other cultural matters. There is no room in a free society for a state-mandated medical dogma which we all must accept.
No government, of the people or otherwise constituted, is competent to decide such questions for all of us. No government should impose its beliefs and opinions in such a realm on its citizens. When a government, even one which calls itself a democracy, oversteps its bounds and affirms what point of view we all must hold and thus does not allow us to hold competing points of view, we have tyranny. Then it no longer protects our rights but becomes a ”Big Brother”. It is tragic how readily we are willing to sacrifice freedom in order to achieve certain goals. But what can freedom possibly mean if we are not allowed to make such decisions ourselves.
IfВ weВ goВ back only aВ few hundred years toВ the Middle Ages, weВ find that this ideal ofВ individual freedom hardly existed atВ all. InВ many places onВ the earth today itВ isВ still, unfortunately, only anВ ideal. Yet due toВ the courageous efforts ofВ many individuals, weВ inВ the West have seen this ideal firmly established. InВ fact, weВ take these rights for granted.
But there are many people inВ our society who worry that our civil liberties are being slowly eroded. There are always В«good reasonsВ» for abrogating the rights ofВ the individual. The authorities inВ the Middle Ages had excellent reasons, ofВ course, for denying the right toВ religious freedom. They were В«absolutely certainВ» (and some still hold this point ofВ view) that whoever did not worship asВ the authorities saw fit risked eternal damnation. Such aВ decision was not toВ beВ given toВ the individual toВ make. Only after tremendous conflict and sacrifice was the freedom toВ worship asВ one saw fit (orВ not toВ worship atВ all) finally established. IsВ itВ not ironic that what weВ have given toВ the individual inВ the realm ofВ his soul isВ not now given inВ the realm ofВ bodily health, which, weВ assume, does not have much toВ doВ with eternal salvation? WeВ inВ the West wax indignant when weВ see other governments impose particular religious beliefs orВ otherwise limit religious freedom. Yet our government, which grants that particular freedom, would impose its medical beliefs and limit the freedom ofВ its citizens toВ decide onВ the medical care for their children. AsВ inВ certain countries today, asВ inВ Europe during much ofВ its history, the authorities have decided that weВ cannot beВ allowed toВ make such decisions ourselves. Whatever the justification might be, and again the state has excellent reasons, this isВ the nub ofВ the matter. The Government ofВ Ontario has made itself the parent ofВ all children with regard toВ these medical procedures.
We are greatly troubled by the authoritarian attitude which underlies such a policy. Such meddling in the normal affairs of the individual implies a disdain for the ability of the «ordinary» citizen to run his life and care for his children properly, though this is usually not said. Underlying all such compulsory measures is a lack of confidence in the ideal of individual freedom, which is the cornerstone of a free society. Such elitism, arrogance and condescension ill befit the role of public servant. Of course, we realize that there are other motives involved here as well. One is not just protecting the individual from himself. One is also promoting such a program for other ends and we will address this aspect later. Given such attitudes, it comes as no surprise to us that the government has chosen to use the children’s schooling as a lever to force compliance with this law. We find this appalling.
1. Vaccination and the struggle for health freedom by Edda West — The Vaccine Choice Journal – Fall 2014 (pdf)
2. 1984 ISPA amendment
3. 1982 ISPA (1)
4. 1982 ISPA (2)