The fine line between legality and inequality in compulsory vaccination for all is according to Claude Gravel, a lawyer who specializes in labor law who runs through TVA Nouvelles.
“It’s like balancing the advantages of compulsory vaccination obligations against the disadvantages; we’re talking here of collective law versus individual law,” says Claude Gravel.
Governments will have to study the file very carefully, because there are many pitfalls on the horizon, says the lawyer.
“It’s a bit like a field of roses, and there are a lot of thorns,” Claude Gravel describes.
According to him, it may be more justified for a part of society or those who have a certain 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,” Claude Gravel says.
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. On the other hand, it can be considered as an indirect way of ordering the vaccination of its employees.
“The choice of vaccination is and should be a free and voluntary choice. Therefore, from the moment an employer takes a roundabout path to achieving the goal of vaccination, this risks being contested,” recalls the attorney.
All citizens have the right to refuse vaccination for personal, medical or religious reasons.
“Extreme twitteraholic. Passionate travel nerd. Hardcore zombie trailblazer. Web fanatic. Evil bacon geek.”