Would an antivax tax violate the Canada Health Act? Legault’s plan, however, is markedly different in that rather than simply limiting the activities of the unvaccinated it imposes a financial penalty on them no matter where they are or go in their daily lives. It’s a “fine” as much as a “tax.” And whatever you call it, legal scholars are already warning Legault’s plan could violate the Canada Health Act because it would require some people to pay a special fee to access the public health system. They point out that Canada currently does not penalize people for declining a certain medical treatment even if that results in a cost on the rest of society. And they say it shouldn’t start now. A different alarm is being sounded by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It says Legault’s tax could violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantee of security of the person, which gives individuals autonomy over their bodies and medical decisions. The association is also worried by the possibility — remote though it might seem — that unvaccinated people who don’t pay the tax could be jailed. https://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorials/2022/01/14/quebec-anti-vax-tax-may-go-too-far.html This article seems to suggest it's against it, but I am not sure if I can trust the author of that article. Is it really against the law or not?
There is not enough detail on the plan to say anything yet. But it is important to understand that the Canada Health Act is not an obligatory law but outlines conditions for provinces to receive significant federal contributions to their budget. Even if the conditions are breached, the federal government would be the only one who has the power to do anything, unlike a Charter violation that gives individuala a cause of action. It likely does not breach the prohibition of user charges: 2 [...] user charge means any charge for an insured health service that is authorized or permitted by a provincial health care insurance plan that is not payable, directly or indirectly, by a provincial health care insurance plan, but does not include any charge imposed by extra-billing. [...] 19 (1) In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, user charges must not be permitted by the province for that fiscal year under the health care insurance plan of the province. [...] since the plan is to impose a financial charge on all vaccinated and such charge is not tied to their access to or actual usage of the public healthcare system. The accessibility criterion may be another ground of breach: 12 (1) In order to satisfy the criterion respecting accessibility, the health care insurance plan of a province (a) must provide for insured health services on uniform terms and conditions and on a basis that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to those services by insured persons; [...] But again, it is the access or the provision of services that matters, the other side of equation is not directly touched except that any charge or other measures, if there is any, should not impede or preclude reasonable access to healthcare. However, even if it does not violate the letters of the law, it violates, in my opinion and when framed like a tax on unvaccinated, the spirits of a universal, accessible health system underpinned by the Act, which is one of the political arguments against the plan. It would be much harder to argue against the fiscal equivalent, though. A bonus for vaccination would likely be much more politically and legally acceptable and less controversial.
It is not legal to give false responses on such a declaration. The point of anti-discrimination laws is that they say when it is legal vs. not legal to discriminate against an employee, and Alex is expected to have faith in the legal system to protect his legal rights. Dissatisfaction with the outcome of the law may be understandable, but still does not legally justify falsifying information given to an employer. In certain cases (look for the fine print and mentions of "penalty of perjury") you can be fined and imprisoned for lying. More commonly, your employment can be terminated when you are discovered. You may also be held liable for consequences of such lies. Your employer's health insurance contract might require truthful and accurate reporting of medical facts and a lie about your condition could result in termination of coverage.
Do vaccine mandates amount to religious discrimination? The term &quot;vaccine mandate&quot; is not sufficiently clear to tell, in a vacuum. Is it a mandate to get a vaccine? A mandate not to serve an unvaccinated individual in a public place? A mandate to vaccinate children that attend public schools? A mandate to serve unvaccinated individuals at public accommodations? Or what? The details of the mandate, how it was enacted, and the circumstances under which it is being challenged, are all critical to determining its legal validity. As noted in the linked answer (text reordered for clarity): Under the US Constitution, a public health authority could even make vaccination mandatory, and this was done in some historical epidemics. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the US Supreme court held such mandatory vaccinations to be constitutional. . . . In Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) the US Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a public school district's exclusion of unvaccinated students. . . . In Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902) the US Supreme Court upheld as constitutional an involuntary quarantine law. Likewise, facially neutral health and safety regulations of businesses are generally valid even if they disproportionately impact members of a religion, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and as it is applies to state and local governments under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 tips the balance somewhat to make accommodations in some circumstances to facially neutral laws that disproportionately impact the free exercise of religion, but still does not prohibit facially neutral laws that serve a compelling public purpose from burdening the free exercise of religion. The core language of that Act which sets forth the substantive standard in those cases states that: SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED. (a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). (b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) JUDICIAL RELIEF.— A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. The standards referenced in the act tap into well established case law that was previously applied less broadly than under the Act, when the U.S. Constitution alone, unaided by the Act, was implicated. Could a restaurant refuse to serve unvaccinated individuals, even including those with sincere religiously-founded anti-vax beliefs? Yes. Usually, businesses can establish facially neutral rules even if they have a disparate religious impact. Generally, private businesses do not have an affirmative duty to serve anyone. Certainly, it could do so as a matter of company policy, if the law did not forbid discrimination specifically on vaccination status (which it currently does not in most or all places in the U.S., although there may be recent legislation on this of which I am not aware). For example, it is legal to operate a restaurant that only serves bacon cheeseburgers and operates 7 days a week, all year long, without holidays (in many places that lack blue laws for restaurants), even though this effectively denies service to strictly observant Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and (on Fridays during Lent) to observant Catholics, and could make it an uncomfortable place for such workers to work. The harder question is whether the restaurant could serve an unvaxxed individual when the business and the customer both want to do so, and both have sincere religious beliefs that cause them to feel that they must do so (the business owner might have sincere beliefs about serving everything, the customer might have sincere beliefs about being unvaxxed for religious reasons). Even then, when religious people aren't singled out for being religious, this requirement might be upheld if there was no alternative that meets the public health goals of the requirement, although the case that there could be some alternative that is less restrictive might be pretty good.
In general, a &quot;mandate&quot; is not a legal term. It can refer to any situation is whch people are &quot;required&quot; to do something, such as wear masks or become vaccinated. A mandate can come from a private business, that imposes rules on customers; it can come from a business that imposes rules on employees, it can come from executive action not directly authorized by any law, it can come from a regulation authorized by some law, or be directly imposed by law. Mandates imposed by law or regulation are likely to be enforceable in court, depending on their exact terms. Mandates imposed by executive action may perhaps be enforced in court. Mandates imposed by private businesses can often be enforced by the business ejecting a customer, refusing to deal with an entity that does not comply, or by disciplining or discharging an employee. In each case the exact terms of the mandate will matter, and may define how it may be enforced.
An anti-BDS law may be invalid in some circumstances, but this has nothing to do with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Boycotting or not boycotting Israel is not an inherently religious question and isn't justified as such. More often the issues will be pre-emption by a higher level of government's laws, lack of legal authority to enact such a law under an authorizing statute, or possible the &quot;dormant commerce clause.&quot; The linked material in the OP refers to the First Amendment freedom of association and possible the First Amendment freedom to petition, not to the establishment clause.
Article 640 of the Italian Penal Code under the heading &quot;Crimes against property by fraud&quot; begins (via Google Translate): Anyone who, by artifice or deceit, by misleading someone, procures an unfair profit to himself... And the article (cited by the OP in a comment) says the suspect... ...worked in the health sector and had been suspended from his job because he had refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The jab is mandatory for all health workers. So, it seems the allegation is that he intended to &quot;profit&quot; by gaining a COVID-19 vaccine certificate and therefore unjust employment after attempting to use the silicone patch to deceive the health worker. Edit following @jkej's comment observing that the alleged unfair profit was never actually procured. The more likely charge - depending on the actual evidence - would seem to fall under Article 56 which begins under the heading Crime Attempted (again via Google Translate): Whoever carries out suitable acts, directed in an unequivocal way to commit a crime, is liable for an attempted crime, if the action is not carried out or the event does not occur.
This might be legal to do with patients in some places, but it is probably not legal to do in general, although it might be hard to enforce the laws prohibiting this conduct against a provider in Pakistan. Different countries and sub-national governments regulate providing therapy differently. Some don't regulate it all, so you would only have to comply with the law of Pakistan on the subject, if any. Other places require an occupational license to provide therapy, and in those case, the law of the place where the patient resides could apply that licensure requirement based upon where the patient resides, where the therapist is located when the service is provided, or by some other rules. You would have to determine this on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis to be legal. Many jurisdictions also have VAT or GST taxes that would apply to fees collected for therapy services provided to someone in their jurisdiction, and this would also be a compliance issue if there was fee for the therapy. As a practical matter, you would also have to consider if there was any meaningful way that you could be punished for providing therapy services or not paying taxes in particular jurisdictions where some patients might reside or be receiving your app's services. If there was no meaningful remedy for violating those laws against your company in Pakistan, you might decide to ignore those laws because you could.
There are, as far as I know, no &quot;FDA-approved&quot; vaccines against covid in the US. The FDA has given Emergency Use Authorization to some vaccines. This does not currently include the Johnson &amp; Johnson vaccine. It is impossible for a person to get the J&amp;J vaccine in the US, because it is not authorized, and J&amp;J does not distribute it. One could imagine an unauthorized foreign vaccine being smuggled into the US, but it would be illegal to distribute it. I assume that you specifically mean, can a person refuse to get a vaccination on the grounds that it only has an emergency authorization and is not actually approved: and can one sue an employer for firing you because you refused to get vaccinated? In general, the employer can fire for anything they want, unless you have an employment contract that limits the grounds for termination. There are discrimination-based grounds that they cannot use, such as race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, disability, age (age 40 or older), or genetic information at the federal level. Mississippi has no specific employment discrimination laws. Other that that, an employer can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason (Mississippi is what's known as an &quot;employment at will&quot; state). There are some state restrictions where it is prohibited for an employer to fire an employee for engaging in a specific required activity such as being called for jury duty or being called to military duty. An employer could not require an employee to break the law, but that is not applicable here.