The fine line is between legality and inequality in compulsory vaccination for all, according to May-Claude Gravel, an attorney specializing in labor law that was passed to TVA Nouvelles on Friday.
“It is like balancing the advantages of compulsory vaccination obligations against the disadvantages; we are talking here of collective law versus individual law,” said Claude Gravel.
The lawyer said that governments will therefore have to study the file very carefully, as many traps loom on the horizon.
‘It’s a bit like a field of roses,’ said Mr. Gravel, ‘and there are a lot of thistles.’
According to him, it may be more justified for a part of society or those who work in a particular job, since it will be easy to prove that it is necessary to ensure the security of a person.
In the private sector, it is up to the business owner to ensure the responsibility of maintaining a safe working environment for all, but in the case of a pandemic, the task is more difficult.
“Employers have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their employees, so how can they deal with employees who simply stick to vaccination versus those who don’t keep up with the flow,” Gravel said.
Challenges in court
In the United States, many large companies have begun to require vaccinations for their employees. CNN even fired three people for refusing to receive a dose.
According to the attorney, employers may be tempted to require proof of vaccination as a condition of keeping a job. A procedure that can nevertheless be considered an indirect way of ordering the vaccination of its employees.
“Choice of vaccination is and should be a free and voluntary choice. Therefore, from the moment an employer will take a roundabout path to achieving the goal of vaccination, that may be disputed,” recalls the attorney.
All citizens have the right to refuse vaccination for personal, medical or religious reasons.
“Evil thinker. Music scholar. Hipster-friendly communicator. Bacon geek. Amateur internet enthusiast. Introvert.”