|
Hey, I wasn't born in Canada, so you'll have to understand if I have less than religious respect for the Charter or any other Canadian law.
I mean, of course they're important. I'm even willing to bet I obey the "follow the speed limit" laws more than most of y'all. I have a ton of respect for laws, but not to the level of "The Charter Is The Word" and no new information could prompt a rewriting of it (just like if you're the religious sort, no new information would get you to update the 10-and-a-half commandments). I believe in ethics and having conversation about ethics and also in reality and sometimes we need to make laws that reflect the best compromise between your ethics, my ethics, and reality.
Now, the Charter is 40 years old. You know what we haven't had since 60 years prior? A pandemic that killed 4.3 million people and upended our way of living -- not even because of how many people it has killed yet, but because if we relax our restrictions
just a little, just a little to soon, it could be 10x more. Ask your friends in India and Indonesia
how quickly that can happen.
(If you don't have friends in India or Indonesia, or Lombardy or Louisiana, then you don't have the expertise to be in this conversation.)
So, to me, what's the big deal of changing the Charter once in 40 years to take account of new information?
I trust David's arguments that mask mandates aren't in violation of Charter rights. But what if they were? What if James were right and some court confirmed it? Then, (and this time I've thought about my wording carefully and I'm sure it strikes the appropriate
tone since it's in no way personal), fuck the Charter.
Thank you, Charter, for saying I can say that.
Lucas
From: David Macalister
Sent: August 13, 2021 12:11 To: James Fleming; Irene Pang Cc: Dai Heide; Steve DiPaola; Martin Hahn; Lucas Herrenbrueck; academic-discussion@sfu.ca Subject: Re: freedom and masking ethics Sorry to disappoint James, but I actually am a constitutional lawyer, and have been teaching Human Rights and Civil Liberties for 35 years. The rights and freedoms set out in the Charter are rights as-against government, not as-against non-governmental entities. This is why we need to continue to have a Human Rights Act (or Human Rights Code) to prevent discrimination in the non-governmental sector (eg. in access to services customarily available to the public or in housing and employment) The Charter's equality provision (s. 15) does not protect us in these situations. In a series of cases handed down in the 1980s and 1990s the courts wrestled with the scope of the Charter's application, concluding that it was government that was restricted by the Charter. The McKinney case and the Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association case dealt with whether mandatory retirement was a violation of the Charter right to equality on the basis of age. The DKFA case was successful because Douglas College was found to be an aspect of government, while the McKinney case was not since the University of Guelph is not a part of government (the existence of a Senate in the governance structure appeared to make all the difference in making universities sufficiently independent from government so as to be exempt from Charter control). To be clear, the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter are rights and freedoms held as against government, not held in some other abstract sense.
David
David MacAlister, MA, JD, LLM Vice President, Western Society of Criminology Secretary-Treasurer, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform & Criminal Justice Policy
Simon Fraser University | Saywell Hall 10134 From: James Fleming
Sent: August 13, 2021 11:58 AM To: David Macalister; Irene Pang Cc: Dai Heide; Steve DiPaola; Martin Hahn; Lucas Herrenbrueck; academic-discussion@sfu.ca Subject: Re: freedom and masking ethics David, I take it that neither of us is a constitutional lawyer. However, I really don't see your point. The constitution of Canada is the constitution of Canada. The rights and freedoms that it defines apply to and are guaranteed for all Canadians. S. 32 makes explicit that the Charter applies to and supervenes over all Canadian legislatures (before going into the business of the notwithstanding clause). It does not say the Charter is only a set of operating rules for government.
To be sure, the Charter sets bounds beyond which government cannot interfere with citizens. But that is my point. These bounds are law. And that applies to all.
When the Charter says everybody has certain fundamental rights, and then defines them, that is what it means.
I understand that Canadian constitutional jurisprudence has taken some odd turns in the last 40 years, but I hope it has not gotten quite as odd as you seem to be suggesting. JDF
From: David Macalister
Sent: August 13, 2021 11:38 AM To: James Fleming; Irene Pang Cc: Dai Heide; Steve DiPaola; Martin Hahn; Lucas Herrenbrueck; academic-discussion@sfu.ca Subject: Re: freedom and masking ethics James, I thought I made this clear in a previous email, but apparently not. The Charter was created to impose limits on GOVERNMENT action, not the actions of individuals or non-governmental entities (please read beyond s. 2 and look at s. 32: Application of Charter). In McKinney v. University of Guelph, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly stated that universities are non-governmental entities (unlike colleges which are governmental... it is all based on their governance structure). Accordingly, the Charter DOES NOT apply to universities for most purposes.
David
David MacAlister, MA, JD, LLM Vice President, Western Society of Criminology Secretary-Treasurer, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform & Criminal Justice Policy
Simon Fraser University | Saywell Hall 10134 From: James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 13, 2021 8:31 AM To: Irene Pang Cc: Dai Heide; Steve DiPaola; Martin Hahn; Lucas Herrenbrueck; academic-discussion@sfu.ca Subject: Re: freedom and masking ethics Thanks Irene. Your points are clear and well-argued. However, I'm going to have to disagree.
I'm going to base my responses on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the leading part of this country's 1982 Constitution. The opening of the Charter states:
<< 1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and _expression_, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. >>
Notably, section 1 above allows limits on the freedoms listed in section 2. However, these limits must be reasonable, legal, statutory ("prescribed"), "demonstrably" justifiable, and consistent with "a free and democratic society." A high standard! For the moment, let's just note that, in considering mask mandates, there are two issues before us, a primary and a secondary. The primary issue is whether mask mandates violate the Charter. The secondary issue is whether the violation is allowable.
It is transparently clear that forcing somebody who does not want to wear a face-covering, just in order to present himself to society, to wear one, violates 2(b) of the Charter above (freedom of _expression_). Probably also 2(c) and 2(d). The same point would hold for somebody who *does* want to go around in a face-covering, but is forced to take it off. So the primary issue is unambiguous. Now, there are surely exceptions--the secondary issue. These will include technical contexts, like some of those you cite. However, it is fallacious to characterize an exception as the rule (because, you see, then there's no exception). Yes, if I plan to work with dangerous chemicals or bioagents, authority says I have to wear a Hazmat suit. It simply does not follow that it would be no big deal if authority said I had to wear a Hazmat suit in order to go buy groceries.
In a sense, the pandemic imposed a special, technical context on our whole society. But the pandemic is now coming to an end. Part of what we are all debating in this discussion is exactly when over is over--and that is a fraught question, to be sure. But let's be clear about one thing: once the pandemic is indeed over, universal (non-technical) mask mandates will be illegal in Canada. A fortiori, rules or decrees for universal masking, even those made by universities, will be illegal, unenforceable, and actionable.
Now, you seem also to be making accusations of anti-Asian racism. I am unable to find the prima facie validity for this claim, and I find it quite regrettable.
We as a society have been passing for the last 18 months through a viral cloud. In response, we have accepted extraordinary prophylactic restrictions on our freedom--from mandatory masks to social isolation to checkpoints on the highway. Extending such restrictions post-pandemic, I have been arguing here, would be unconstitutional in this country. But nobody will notice if we don't stand up and say so.
The professoriate, it seems to me, has a special responsibility in times like this. Not to draw out or enforce the opportunity to say to our students, and each other, and the society: "you have to." Rather, to watch for, and seize, and open up, and hold open the very first opportunity to say: "you don't."
JDF
Professor, Department of English Simon Fraser University Burnaby/Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
A grateful mind / By owing owes not -- Paradise Lost
From: Irene Pang <irene_pang@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 12, 2021 10:52 AM To: Cynthia Patton Cc: Dai Heide; Steve DiPaola; James Fleming; Martin Hahn; Lucas Herrenbrueck; academic-discussion@sfu.ca Subject: Re: freedom and masking ethics I'd like to take on James's thought-experiment about a mask mandate for the flu. In thinking through this, I'd like to address three issues:
1. Is mask wearing really an assault on individual freedoms? 2. Mechanisms for changing norms 3. Orientalism and Anti-Asian hate This is long, so here's the TL;DR: 1. No. 2. Mandates formalize new norms 3. The question of "why wear masks" is orientalist. We need to destigmatize mask wearing, and we can start by talking about mask wearing differently, and asking questions differently. Here goes... Should there be a mask mandate to curb the seasonal flu? To that, I would answer: the seasonal flu costs the economy and the public health system huge amounts of money each year. So if a mask mandate works to curb the flu, why ever not? This might illicit a shudder from most people, so let’s break down why this suggestion seems so offensive. Is it the act of wearing a face mask that is an assault on one’s personal freedom? Or is it the mandate of mask wearing that is an assault on one’s freedom? 1. Assault on Individual Freedoms I don’t think the argument that wearing a face mask is an assault on one’s personal freedom is seriously viable or defensible. As others have pointed out, wearing a mask to prevent the spread of disease crimps your style about as much as wearing a hard hat going into a construction site, or wearing safety goggles and gloves when working with chemicals. It’s a discomfort that takes some getting used to, but it is perfectly sensible to wear a mask in the context of a raging pandemic, or when the flu is going around, or even under “normal” circumstances if you happen to be sick but need to be in a public space. What’s wrong with masking up so that you don’t spread your germs around? I trust we’re all in agreement about the efficacy of the face mask: there is now plenty of literature to substantiate this. So, wearing a mask really is just an informed decision based on good science and common sense. It must therefore be the mandate of mask wearing, i.e. being told to wear a mask by the government, by the university, by mom, etc., that is an assault on one’s freedom. But if people were not so averse to wearing a mask, we wouldn’t need a mandate to make everyone wear one. Indeed, in Hong Kong, for instance, the government did not put in a mask mandate until it experienced a “third wave”* of Covid19 in July 2020, by which time it was rather a moot point and more a political gesture, because people had been wearing masks all along – this was how Hong Kong escaped the large outbreaks that plagued much of the rest of the world. I distinctly recall that, as discussions still raged on in Canada around April or May 2020 as to whether masks worked at all as a public health measure, public health experts in Hong Kong were lamenting that the population had gotten complacent: they observed that the rate of mask wearing in public had dropped from 99.7% to 99.2%. I could only roll my eyes and sigh. Ugh. First world problems. [*Hong Kong had about 4000 cases in this “third wave” which lasted from July through August 2020. That’s an infection rate of about 0.85 cases per 100K per day, compared to BC’s current infection rate of about 7.5 cases per 100K per day] The case of Hong Kong, as well as others like Taiwan, would suggest that if the public is not averse to wearing a face mask, a mandate is entirely unnecessary. It’s a bit like if teenagers would clean up their rooms themselves, mom wouldn’t have to tell them to. So it must be that some people – or enough people – are so averse to wearing a mask that a mask mandate becomes necessary. But why are some people so averse to wearing a face mask? In a brief but interesting tracing of the global history of mask wearing, Mitsutoshi Horii (2014) noted that it was in the context of the Spanish Flu of 1918 that mask wearing became a widespread practice first in the US and the UK. A number of cities in the US issued legislation requiring mask wearing for all citizens in public places, and the practice was also recommended in the UK. This “Mask Order”, as it was known, was resented by the public, and many saw it as an affront to “modern” values of personal civil liberty. But mask wearing eventually spread to Asia as well, where it received quite a difference response. It stuck, and it’s still much more “normal” to wear a mask in large parts of Asia now. The understanding of civil liberty as residing in the individual has taken off in North America, and the US suffers from an extreme neoliberal form of it, but the point is that the aversion to the face mask is arguably rooted in this historically-specific and particularistic understanding of civil liberty which has widely been critiqued. There are, of course, other understandings of civil liberty which are more sensitive to the individual as a member of the social whole, and which understands that the whole is more than just the sum of individual parts. There are also conceptualizations of civil liberty which understand it not simply as negative liberty, i.e. freedom from (mandates, restrictions, other kinds of interference, etc.), but also as positive liberty, i.e. freedom to (health, safety, community, etc.). But I digress. Let’s be clear about this: mask aversion is not a universal, natural, or even normal – whether as “statistically prevalent” or as “normative standard to which we aspire” – thing. It is specific to time and place. To take the norm of a specific time and place (e.g. mask aversion in North America) and conflate it with what is natural (i.e. it is “universal”), and to further conflate what is natural with what is good (i.e. it is “moral”, and any deviation from this is “immoral”, e.g. an assault to individual freedoms) is an epistemic injustice. More on that later. I hope we can all agree that masks work as a simple and relatively affordable device for curbing the spread of airborne pathogens, and, following from that, that wearing a mask will help us protect each other, which is a socially desirable outcome. In the context of the pandemic (as others have pointed out, it’s not over), in order to achieve the desired collective or herd protection, we need everyone, not just a few people, to wear masks. Wearing a mask will allow us to more safely gather in the same space and have a social life again. Again, for the sake of context: Hong Kong has never imposed a lockdown throughout the pandemic. There have been periodic school closures, and restrictions on the dine-in capacity of restaurants, but that’s about it. It goes again to show that the humble face mask allows societies to maintain some semblance of business as usual, but only if enough people wear one. Many of the “side effects” of pandemic restrictions, such as missed doctors’ appointments, delayed medical procedures, stress on mental health due to social isolation etc. can be effectively mitigated if we would all just wear a mask. Vaccination is great, but until even young children can get vaccinated, the mask is still the simplest way to get back to some social life while staying safe. But as discussed above, there is a cultural aversion to mask wearing that is specific to the North American context. How do we deal with that? Dr. Bonnie Henry has mostly pursued a strategy of gentle persuasion: inform the public and trust them to make sensible decisions. It seems to me that most people in BC have been sensible, but then there are always late adopters of new norms, or people who are more difficult to persuade (even with good science). Therefore, as a matter of public urgency, even Dr. Henry has had to sometimes resort to institutional mechanisms to change norms and behaviors, hence the mask mandate for public indoor spaces. It was required for a change that we needed to see quickly. Social scientists will tell you that there are various ways to change norms, and the question about whether it’s institutions (structures) that change norms (ideas) or changing norms that restructure old institutions is a bit of a chicken and egg question. To me, it’s often a loop. For example, we, as society, have now largely accepted the idea of LGBTQ+ not being pathological and not requiring a cure. The behavior of much of society has adjusted accordingly, but we still need institutional change, e.g. a change in the law, to formalize this new norm, and to protect us from those segments of society who refuse to adapt to the new norm. Like the bill to outlaw conversion therapy, the mask mandate is, to me, a formalization of a new norm: the norm of mass mask wearing to curb the spread of disease. And it seems to me that some find it repulsive because they haven’t yet adopted the new norm. But to go back to the very start of my rant, what is so repulsive about the norm itself? Is the problem the act of wearing the mask? And if not, what’s wrong with formalizing the norm of mask wearing so that we can all acquire this new habit quickly, with urgency, and more consistently? But if the objection is more fundamentally to the formalization of new norms, then… we’d have to pretty much do away with all laws, and that’s not a debate I’m ready to take on. 3. Orientalism and Anti-Asian hate
At the start of the pandemic (or maybe even today), there was a lot of skepticism about the efficacy of face masks. Many people asked, “why wear a mask? Isn’t it just a weird Asian cultural thing?”What is so deeply problematic about the seemingly benign question of “why wear a mask” is that it takes for granted the North American (and European) norm of not wearing masks and assumes it to be the default, and therefore positions mask wearing as the deviation from or exception to the norm. Much less articulated is “why not wear a mask? Isn’t mask aversion just a North American/European thing?” Indeed, why should we take for granted mask aversion as norm, especially when there are large parts of the (non-white) world in which mass mask wearing is accepted as the norm, unless we subscribed to some belief in the inherent superiority of (white) North Americans and Europeans to set norms? Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, these "other" (non-white) parts of the world also had a lot more experience than North America and Europe in dealing with contemporary pandemics (e.g. SARS). (Don’t even get me started on how existing literature that came out of Asia on mask efficacy were largely dismissed in the early days of the pandemic until clinical studies from North America and Europe “proved” – duh – exactly what Asian researchers had found…) There is, as I’ve discussed earlier, nothing “normal” about mask aversion, whether in the sense of global statistical prevalence, or in the sense of it being some normative standard to which the world should aspire. We need to recognize the understanding of Asian mask wearing through and in terms of the North American and European norm of mask aversion as what it is: Orientalism. The misrecognition of North American and European mask aversion as normal (statistically prevalent), and the conflation of normal and natural (universal), and then the conflation of natural and good (morally desirable) has led to the stigmatization of the alternative to mask aversion, that is, mask wearing. And because mask wearing is seen as an “Asian cultural thing”, this is fueled Anti-Asian hate. I have, while walking near Harbor Center and wearing a mask, been yelled at to “go back to China”. (Many thanks if you've read all the way down to here...)
Irene
> > Thanks, Dai for refocusing the question. > > In fact, I don’t mind a masked ‘flu season’ at all. I have always taught my classes (on any topic) about ‘herd immunity’ and encouraged them to stay home when sick, and when students have worn masks to class, I thank them (privately) for caring about others. > > In order to make this a norm (Covid 19 will surely be followed be other little friends) we need to have greater capacity for hybrid learning and a few simple things like mikes, sufficient internet capacity for small group work (I already had students using google docs in class to produce group work outcomes). I have been impressed seeing how creative students have been in defining and accomplishing their learning objectives. > > To me, it’s not that hard. We have all learned a lot from teaching on line. I was by chance also taking advance mandarin classes, so I got to see what second language learning can look like. If this old dog can learn new tricks then hey, the people who came to teaching with these technologies should be able to chart a new future. > > Cindy Patton > Professor of Sociology and Anthropology > > The lands on which we live and work are the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) and Kwikwetlem (kʷikʷəƛ̓əm) Nations. > ________________________________ > From: Dai Heide <dheide@sfu.ca> > Sent: August 12, 2021 1:41:06 AM > To: Steve DiPaola > Cc: James Fleming; Martin Hahn; Lucas Herrenbrueck; academic-discussion@sfu.ca > Subject: Re: freedom and masking ethics > > I have been following this discussion with interest. This is a hard tine and emotions are running high. Some of our discussion has been focused on coarse grained points about the infectiousness of the delta variant. And some of our discussion has been focused on very fine grained questions about the particular circumstances that individuals are in. > > Perhaps a better way to focus ourselves on the salient issue is to ask ourselves this: what does the end of the pandemic emergency look like to you? > > The vast majority of public health experts I’ve heard from believe that Covid will be endemic. If eradication is genuinely off the table, then it is important to ask ourselves how we envision living in a Covid world from here on out. > > To be clear, I’m not suggesting that this is the moment to return to a pre-Covid set of behavioural standards. I’m in support of a vaccine mandate for everyone present on the SFU campuses. And I’m willing to accept that other restrictions and compromises may be necessary in the short term. > > But, in the end, unless we are willing to live in a cycle of emergencies in perpetuity, we need to grapple with this: what is an acceptable level of Covid risk? > > I don’t think our conversation so far has genuinely dealt with this question. And it’s a fraught question for obvious reasons, not least of which is that public health considerations must abstract from some facts about individuals. Nevertheless, this is almost certainly the question that we are going to have to answer. So it’s worth our consideration. > > DH > > *************** > Dr. Dai Heide > Senior Lecturer > Dept. of Philosophy > Simon Fraser University > > On Aug 11, 2021, at 11:40 PM, Steve DiPaola <sdipaola@sfu.ca> wrote: > > I didn't mean to offend, I guess I was affected by your comparison and got a bit emotional in my response. We are talking about children. Still facts are facts. As I am following the data closely on all parts of this, and now seeing the significant uptick in young children that can not be vaccinated, getting COVID from ANY source ( see ** below) and thinking now of SFU faculty and students with young children in their households, is a significant issue. I DO NOT think the situation is different here than the US or anywhere else - the science is the same. Children are getting severe COVID at an increasing rate. The only difference is the statistical amounts and where a place is on a time curve. Young un-vaccinated children will get covid and some severely here just like anywhere, just 'currently' less of them. But we protect our children from known harms, this is one. Many of us following the data, were exactly worried about this and now it is here. Some of this is even worse because we learned recently that those who are fully vaccinated, while having probability of going to ICU or dying is well under 1% ( lower for those under 60) , their chances of getting COVID are way higher (5% - 20%) and the way way more scary new finding - ** that fully vaccinated people who get COVID can transmit COVID to others ( like our young children). So a fully vaccinated faculty/student/staff can come into SFU, get Covid and give it to their children (a child that does not have the protection from severe illness like their parent). The best way to protect that situation is mandatory masks. The 2nd best way of preventing that (that is because it has longer time curve, so 1st way must be in place) is bringing down the viral load in a population over time (it takes about 2 months or more to be fully protected via vaccination) by getting the everyone vaccinated, including like almost all companies ( except Apple for some reason) by mandating it at work and institutions and government offices ( and restaurant chains ... and countries). > > Me personally: Surely I would be for an SFU employee/student mask mandate and an SFU employee/student vaccine mandate. But for the later - I would amend the mandate to 1 vaccine to enter school in Sept and 2 vaccines by Nov. I would do this because right now, both international students (or Candians who were abroad over the summer) are now coming back to Canada (many on planes this week) and possibly could not get a vaccine where they came from - so I still would allow them to start school with 1 vaccine and of course the 2nd typically is 7 weeks later ( + 2 more weeks for it to take full effect) so by Nov. > > I reiterate though, that the only difference with our situation and the US south - well we are both now in a situation where unvaccinated children will get severe Covid from others at increasing rates - just in the US south that number and where they are on a time curve is higher. > > > - Steve DiPaola, PhD - - > - Prof: Sch of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT); > - Past Director: Cognitive Science Program; > - - Simon Fraser University - - - > research site: ivizlab.sfu.ca > art work site: www.dipaola.org/art/ > our book on: AI and Cognitive Virtual Characters > > At Simon Fraser University, we live and work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations. > > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:12 PM James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca> wrote: >> >> Steve, I must say that I find your comment somewhat intemperate, and scarcely apropos to my last. I have been very clearly pro-vaccination. Our public health situation in BC, and in Canada generally, thank goodness, differs very significantly from those that obtain in the US states you mention. I am not aware of evidence that any Covid variant has attained vaccine escape. In this, it seems, I am in agreement with our public health authorities. I stand by the thought-experiment at the end of my previous contribution to the current discussion. And I certainly would be grateful for reasoned responses to it. Best wishes, JDF ________________________________ >> From: Steve DiPaola <sdipaola@sfu.ca> >> Sent: August 11, 2021 9:01:46 PM >> To: James Fleming >> Cc: Martin Hahn; Lucas Herrenbrueck; academic-discussion@sfu.ca >> Subject: Re: freedom and masking ethics >> >> James what are you comparing? Your arguments seem weak given current/upcoming realities. Did you know that in Florida and Texas, which simply might be a precursor to here and the world, especially if using your and others suggestions of freedom ( free choice not to mask or vaccine), now have cancelled major surgeries (which will deeply harm others) and more so, there is a exponential uptick of ICU and deaths among children under 12. This is directly because of the supposed individual freedom of the unvaccinated / unmasked. So freedom to kill or cause severe illness in other people's children does not seem even remotely close to what you have labelled freedom to be "unhygienic " or this is like the flu now. It instead is one of the most extreme examples of needing to be regulated for public good, similar to other regulations we already have in other areas less harmful. (ie. the extreme example of killing other people's children through your recklessness, right up there or higher than, say heavy drinking and driving near a grade school) . "Then is not now" you say - we had no Delta then ( or the next variant which will also be caused by the unvaccinated and the heavy reproduction of the virus). It is worse now - children that can not get vaccinated are dying. I will repeat, children that have no way to get vaccinated are dying in ever increasing numbers, because of the covid spread of others. I do not want students returning to SFU (without mandates) to be part of killing their younger siblings and other peoples children. Just news search: children spike covid, and read any one of the many articles here are some excerpts: >> >> >> CNN this week : ( "Florida children's hospitals are overwhelmed with...") >> >> In Florida, which has the second-highest rate of new cases per capita after Louisiana, children's hospitals and staff are "overwhelmed," said Dr. Aileen Marty, an infectious disease expert at Florida International University. >> "The numbers of cases in our hospitals in children and our children's hospitals are completely overwhelmed," Marty told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Friday evening."Our pediatricians, the nursing, the staff are exhausted, and the children are suffering. And it is absolutely devastating ... our children are very much affected. We've never seen numbers like this before," she said. ... >> >> In Texas, ... "We have not seen kids pile into pediatric ICUs across the South like we're seeing right now," Dr. Peter Hotez, at Baylor College of Medicine, told CNN on Friday. ... Returning to schools safely is possible if mitigation efforts, including wearing masks, are implemented, said Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who heads the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. >> >> "The places where you see kids in the hospital, the places where you see footage of kids in the hospital, are all places that are not taking mitigation strategies to keep our children safe," Walensky said Friday. >> The CDC recommends that everyone -- students, teachers, staff and visitors -- wear masks in schools. >> >> NBC News this week: ("Kids sick with Covid are filling up children's hospitals in areas seeing spikes"): >> >> Children’s hospitals in areas seeing a surge in Covid cases are experiencing the same pattern: More children are coming in with Covid symptoms just ahead of the start of the school year. Bed shortages and overworked doctors and nurses in children’s hospitals are becoming commonplace. ... >> >> At Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, Covid positivity rates have risen from around 3 percent to above 10 percent among kids. >> >> In one Hospital New Orleans Hospital, ... 13 children with severe COVID including six under the age of 2. Four children are in the ICU, including a 3-month-old boy, a 23-month-old girl, an 8-year-old girl and a 17-year-old boy. >> >> "Children in Louisiana have died of Covid and more unfortunately will die," said Dr. John Vanchiere, a pediatric infectious disease specialist, as he stood next to Bel Edwards at a news conference last week. "This is not a time for politics, for fighting or threatening lawsuits about masks. Masks save lives. And if you're a pro-life Louisiana resident like I am, wear your mask." >> >> -steve >> >> - Steve DiPaola, PhD - - >> - Prof: Sch of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT); >> - Past Director: Cognitive Science Program; >> - - Simon Fraser University - - - >> research site: ivizlab.sfu.ca >> art work site: www.dipaola.org/art/ >> our book on: AI and Cognitive Virtual Characters >> >> At Simon Fraser University, we live and work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations. >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 7:54 PM James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Martin, indeed: And that was precisely the case 18 months ago. Viz.: preventing death and illness by wearing a piece of cloth--over one's face, while participating in society, which one tried not to do. >>> >>> >>> But then is not now. Due to vaccination, which I strongly support (and with which I and mine have eagerly complied). >>> >>> >>> Of course one can always argue that, in its residuum, a free society is always and by definition unhygienic and irresponsible. >>> >>> >>> But--if one prefers that kind of society--one needs in my opinion to be alive to the point at which such arguments become specious. >>> >>> >>> Every winter, for example, we are beset by a wave of influenza that threatens a small but significant portion of our people with grievous suffering and even death. We have reason to think that a universal and eternal masking mandate would mitigate flu. >>> >>> >>> Should we therefore implement one? >>> >>> >>> JDF >>> >>> >>> James Dougal Fleming >>> >>> Professor, Department of English >>> >>> Simon Fraser University >>> >>> Burnaby/Vancouver, >>> >>> British Columbia, >>> >>> Canada. >>> >>> >>> A grateful mind / By owing owes not >>> >>> -- Paradise Lost >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Martin Hahn <mhahn@sfu.ca> >>> Sent: August 10, 2021 9:54 AM >>> To: Lucas Herrenbrueck; James Fleming >>> Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>> Subject: Re: freedom and masking ethics >>> >>> >>> Amen to that. There is one thing that James has right, though. Covid19 is not restricting our freedoms. We are choosing to restrict them in response to the pandemic. >>> >>> >>> But we make such choices routinely, I am not allowed to drive on the left, to do so without a seatbelt, to throw objects out of the widow as I drive (especially lit cigarettes) Some of these restrictions are purely paternalistic as they only prevent harm to the would-be violator (seatbelt laws), some for public safety (lit cigarettes), some for coordination (driving on the right) some to solve prisoner's dilemma situations where the rational decision of each individual would lead to a worse outcome (littering laws). These are choices, not circumstances. >>> >>> >>> Covid vaccine and mask mandates are partly paternalistic, but mostly public safety decisions. But there is nothing wrong with restricting freedoms for a good reason. Every law and regulation does this. The idea that a law would be unconstitutional simply because it restricts our freedom will not fly. To complete the argument, James needs to show that the public good that comes from these mandates is not worth the restriction on freedom. When the good is preventing death and illness and the cost wearing a piece of cloth for a few months, or getting a shot which also protects you, I just don't see the argument. >>> >>> >>> Like Lucas, I don't know what SFU is allowed to do, but am pretty sure the Ministry of Health could allow it to do what needs to be done, or even make it do this. >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> On 8/10/2021 9:26 AM, Lucas Herrenbrueck wrote: >>> >>> Hi James, >>> >>> >>> Thanks for getting such an important discussion started! >>> >>> >>> I leave the legal question to others. David MacAlister and Steve DiPaola's emails have me convinced that a university mask mandate would be perfectly legal. But if you're not sure, James, you can sue and then we'll find out. >>> >>> >>> I want to talk about the ethics of a mask mandate here. (I'm not an ethics expert, but maybe you guys want to chime in?) Nobody will disagree that a mask mandate is a restriction on freedom. I'll also be the first to concede that seeing each other's faces is quite an important component of human interaction, and it definitely sucks not to have that (indoors) right now. >>> >>> >>> But the fact is that "freedom" is a lot of things, and the total amount of freedom is a finite resource. (As an economist, I do claim to be an expert on finite resources.) COVID-19 has reduced the total amount of freedom available to us, just like climate change has reduced the total amount of the ice pack in our glaciers. We want the freedom not to wear masks, we want the freedom to travel internationally, we want the freedom to see elderly relatives in care homes, and we want the freedom to go to work/class each week without being forced to isolate after a positive test (which we would have to do even if we feel fine, which a good portion of the infected indeed do). >>> >>> >>> We simply can't have all of these things right now. >>> >>> >>> So then the question is how to apportion the remaining freedom. What is the "fair" way of doing that? James says "get vaccinated and mask up if you want, but don't force others to". It's a good ethical argument. But my preferred ethical argument would be: let's try to apportion the loss of freedom as equally as we can. This means "prioritize immunocompromised people's ability to participate in society, prioritize people being able to travel to see loved ones, prioritize children to get in-person schooling, prioritize nobody needing to isolate for 2 weeks at a random time in the middle of the semester" - roughly in that order - and then prioritize "respect peoples' personal comfort zone around vaccinations and masking". >>> >>> >>> And right now, the epidemiology (not to mention the data) of Delta-COVID is screaming at us: we can't have all. We'll be lucky if we can have the first three or four even with universal vaccination and masking. >>> >>> >>> And, finally, if the law doesn't line up with the best combination of ethics and reality we can afford right now, let's change the damn law. >>> >>> >>> Lucas >>> >>> >>> >>> PS: Just saw Nilima's email who makes a similar point about going for the "least invasive measure". Totally agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca> >>> Sent: August 10, 2021 8:44 >>> To: Eirikur Palsson >>> Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>> Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable >>> >>> I would be interested to see the SFU policy that says "no nakedness." If there is one, I doubt it would survive a Charter challenge. (The convention of wearing clothes is a diffuse anthropological norm, not a legal mandate.) >>> >>> Meanwhile, and more importantly: the notion that wearing a mask just to participate in the university is the same as wearing a shirt just to enter Shoppers Drug Mart--this I think is the kind of notion of which we need to beware. >>> >>> Let's take a step back. Covid-19 had the potential to kill perhaps 1% of the world's population (~80 million people). A horrendous prospect. It was in order to prevent the latter that we accepted unprecedented restrictions on our bodies and our lives. Now, however, we are coming toward the completion of a vaccination program that is, by all accounts, extremely effective against this virus. Many of the hygienic practices people have taken on over the last 18 months, including widespread masking, will probably continue for a long time on an inertial basis. But I don't think there is a strong case for continuing to make them mandatory. >>> >>> And, in any case--to come back to my original point--I question whether the university can even do that, on its own authority. >>> >>> Compare a public library. Bonnie Henry says "no more masks." But the librarian, out of an abundance of caution, etc., says you still need a mask to enter the library. Somebody refuses to comply. Can the librarian bar the door? I doubt it. JDF >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Eirikur Palsson <epalsson@sfu.ca> >>> Sent: August 9, 2021 10:19:35 PM >>> To: James Fleming >>> Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>> Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable >>> >>> Yet you don’t seem to have any objection with the university requiring everyone to cover “sensitive” parts of their bodies. It seems banning people from walking around naked would also be a clear restriction of free movement and _expression_ (mostly for prudish reasons). >>> >>> The bottom line is no society is completely free as lots of restriction are put on individuals to “protect” the rest of society, whether it be for health reasons, religious reasons or puritanical reasons. >>> Even stores have policies that state “No shirt, no shoes, no service” or restaurants requiring ties and suits. >>> >>> Eirikur >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 9, 2021, at 8:14 PM, James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca> wrote: >>> >>> Very good! But I wd answer: An obligation to cover one's face, not in specific contexts, but in general social movement, is a clear restriction of free movement and _expression_. Probably (as per my previous), governments, even those committed to the protection and conservation of such freedoms, can nonetheless validly restrict or suspend them under certain circumstances. But only governments can. >>> >>> By that token: As long as government is saying "you guys don't have to wear masks all the time," I question whether SFU (e.g.) can legally say "you guys have to wear masks all the time." If not, then there is little point in calling on SFU to say that. JDF >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Steve DiPaola <sdipaola@sfu.ca> >>> Sent: August 9, 2021 7:22:05 PM >>> To: James Fleming >>> Cc: Christopher Pavsek; academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>> Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable >>> >>> Surely you have a point - but my general pushback is your term "constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms" as opposed to basic university safety rules and regulations. Can you smoke within a classroom - no - why because of a safety regulation? Must you both be trained and use safety goggles and PPE in a univ. chemistry lab - yes - why because of a safety regulation. How different is it to be required to wear a mask during a pandemic to protect those around you? How different is a vaccine requirement than the current requirement for MMR (measles ...) vaccines to attend school? These are safety rules not "constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms" in my view - ones that are very similar to what we already require throughout the university. Surely requiring you to not smoke indoors because when you do dangerous secondhand smoke can move through the air and affect others, is so similar to you must wear a mask so COVID virus particles do not move through the air and affect others inside a building - they are about the same in my view. I do not see these requested requirements much different from what we do for safety now - except of course that we need to enact them quickly and temporarily for this X-months covid event. >>> >>> - Steve DiPaola, PhD - - >>> - Prof: Sch of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT); >>> - Past Director: Cognitive Science Program; >>> - - Simon Fraser University - - - >>> research site: ivizlab.sfu.ca >>> art work site: www.dipaola.org/art/ >>> our book on: AI and Cognitive Virtual Characters >>> >>> At Simon Fraser University, we live and work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 6:50 PM James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> A legal question (with preamble). Over the last 18 months, our society has broadly accepted restrictions on basic rights (notably of free movement, and association) that have, quite clearly, been constitutionally extraordinary. We have, I think, tacitly agreed that desperate times have called for desperate measures. To be sure, it has been disturbing that governments at both national and sub-national levels have temporarily suspended constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms *without,* as far as I am aware, any attempt to articulate a legislative basis for so doing. (Compare the War Measures Act in October 1970.) Nonetheless, they probably could have, if they had wanted to. Which is to say that the restrictions were legal, if they were, only and precisely because they were imposed by government. >>>> >>>> Is it possible that a sub-governmental institution, such as a university, could legally impose, on its own authority, restrictions of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms? >>>> >>>> I struggle to see how. >>>> >>>> JD Fleming >>>> >>>> James Dougal Fleming >>>> Professor, Department of English >>>> Simon Fraser University >>>> Burnaby/Vancouver, >>>> British Columbia, >>>> Canada. >>>> >>>> A grateful mind / By owing owes not >>>> -- Paradise Lost >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Christopher Pavsek <cpavsek@sfu.ca> >>>> Sent: August 9, 2021 2:39:22 PM >>>> To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>>> Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable >>>> >>>> Hi All—I thought I’d share this. UBC’s fac. association has taken this stance: >>>> >>>> https://www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/member_notice/message-president-update/ >>>> >>>> >>>> The salient point, in Rumsfeldian language: “In light of the known knowns, known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns, and in the absence of any risk analysis brought forward by the University, we now believe that a robustly precautionary approach is most appropriate. We therefore call upon UBC to adopt an indoor mask mandate in all its spaces and a vaccine mandate for all its employees and students (subject to the normal legal exemptions) in advance of the September reopening. This course of action will not only do the most to alleviate well-founded anxiety but will also allow the most secure planning of teaching and research activities.” >>>> >>>> So it would seem that pressure around this issue in the province continues to rise. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 4, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Martin Hahn <mhahn@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> That line: " you protect yourself by getting vaccinated" drives me bats! It shows such a profound misunderstanding of what vaccines are for in an epidemic. >>>> >>>> How short is our memory? When Covid vaccines were being developed, epidemiologists were saying that anything over 60% effective would be really good. Why? For personal protection from disease, that is not much better than a coin-toss. But it is enough to do what vaccines really need to do: bring down the R0 - the rate of transmission >>>> >>>> Protecting your kid from measles is not the main reason to get them vaxxed, it's to stop the spread of an incredibly contagious disease which, like polio before it, does not have a devastating effect on most people who get it, but is deadly to enough that letting it spread would be disastrous. >>>> >>>> With Covid getting more transmissible, the percentage of fully vaccinated population needed to bring it under control keeps going up. Canada has some of the highest vaccination rates in the world. But it is not enough. >>>> >>>> Making vaccines mandatory is probably too draconian, but the interim measure is to make the life of the unvaccinated not as free as of those who get the shot. Want to go to a cafe? Work at a certain company? Go to university? Get vaccinated. Even Andrew Coyne, surely a man with stellar libertarian credentials, thinks that is the way to go. US universities and companies are going that way and so are European countries. >>>> >>>> But BC universities? Well, they are currently behind in their understanding, and more afraid of public backlash, not just than US universities and European governments. We have now fallen behind poultry processors in Arkansas! >>>> >>>> Embarrassing. >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> On 8/4/2021 12:51 PM, Lyn Bartram wrote: >>>> >>>> I asked a question in senate about the weakness of the plan, and the answer was “ you protect yourself by getting vaccinated”. But of course this is not the only answer - you protect others by getting vaccinated. I agree with universal masking. It may be the only achievable solution - except for residences. And a number of schools are already mandating it. It’s the least e should do. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Aug 4, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Cynthia Patton <cindy_patton@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can I offer the simplicity of universal masking? The US CDC and others are back on that plate for medium term solutions. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, something to work around in the context of lecturing, etc. but a few "Madonna" microphones (a mere $70 at your local London Drugs) could go some distance to mitigating the muffling. Masking would also provide a substantial degree of safety in small group activities. >>>> >>>> >>>> Even with the small "break through" rate of fully vaccinate people, our students' age cohort are at very high risk because they tend not to realize they are sick unless they're very sick, and then they afraid to affect their grades by taking a day at home. Also given the relatively high number of our students who have their own (unvaccinated, off at day care) kiddies, I am really, really nervous about the kid-young adult vectors putting (grannie-aged) me in harms way. >>>> >>>> >>>> I, too, wish I had confidence in our ventilation systems. But given that Dr. Bonnie and Health Canada denied that coronaviruses are airborne for a very very long time, all of our Universities are way behind any possibility of mitigating that aspect of the problem. >>>> >>>> >>>> In long, we're far from out of the woods. >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Bernhard Riecke <ber1@sfu.ca> >>>> Sent: August 4, 2021 8:22:13 AM >>>> To: Sam Black; Behraad Bahreyni; Lyn Bartram; Baharak Yousefi >>>> Cc: Christopher Pavsek; academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>>> Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable >>>> >>>> An increasing amount of universities in Canada and beyond are requiring vaccinations (at least when living in dorms), e.g.,https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/universities-grappling-with-whether-to-require-mandatory-vaccines-for-students & https://www.fierceeducation.com/best-practices/many-universities-requiring-students-to-get-vaccinated >>>> so it can't be completely impossible. It's indeed a tricky balance between "personal freedom" and "safety", but certainly worth pushing for a safe work environment (I'm already thinking of bringing my own HEPA air purifier to lectures to protect students and myself... something that imho SFU should more seriously consider providing) >>>> cheers >>>> Bernhard >>>> >>>> On 2021-08-03 15:24, Sam Black wrote: >>>> >>>> I too was puzzled by the response Chris received, >>>> >>>> >>>> "there is no requirement for proof of immunization under the University Act, making it impossible for the university to establish such a mandate" >>>> >>>> >>>> For the record, there is a requirement for proof of immunization -- but not for covid immunization -- for incoming students in many Canadian Medical schools, including UBC and the University of Ottawa: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.calendar.ubc.ca/vancouver/index.cfm?tree=12,209,374,340 >>>> >>>> >>>> https://med.uottawa.ca/undergraduate/immunization-requirements >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The University Act neither requires, nor prohibits schools from demanding proof of immunization. Under the University Act it is permitted for schools to demand proof of immunization: as UBC's Medical School has done. So I believe that the question of whether SFU should demand proof of immunization for covid should be debated on its merits by the SFU community. I very much doubt that debate is pre-empted by the jurisdictional argument Chris was given. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sam Black >>>> >>>> Assoc. Prof. Philosophy, SFU >>>> >>>> >>>> I respectfully acknowledge that SFU is on the unceded ancestral and traditional territories of the səl̓ilw̓ətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish), xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) and kʷikʷəƛ̓əm (Kwikwetlem) Nations. >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Behraad Bahreyni <bba19@sfu.ca> >>>> Sent: August 3, 2021 2:27:59 PM >>>> To: Lyn Bartram; Baharak Yousefi >>>> Cc: Christopher Pavsek; academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>>> Subject: RE: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable >>>> >>>> Here is another article on the same subject: >>>> >>>> Canada’s universities and colleges are failing science - Macleans.ca >>>> >>>> >>>> __________________ >>>> Behraad Bahreyni, PhD, PEng >>>> Associate Professor, School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering >>>> Associate Member, School of Engineering Science >>>> SFU Simon Fraser University >>>> >>>> Tel: +1 (778) 782-8694 >>>> Fax: +1 (778) 782-7514 >>>> Web: http://sense.fas.sfu.ca/ >>>> Surrey campus: MSE 4176, 250-13450 102nd Ave, Surrey, BC, CANADA V3T 0A3 >>>> Burnaby campus: ASB 8855, 8888 University Dr, Burnaby, BC, CANADA V5A 1S6 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Lyn Bartram <lyn@sfu.ca> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 2:20 PM >>>> To: Baharak Yousefi <byousefi@sfu.ca> >>>> Cc: Christopher Pavsek <cpavsek@sfu.ca>; academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>>> Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable >>>> >>>> I think there is a lot of bafflegab here. We know other Canadian universities are requiring more stringent ,measures. And I foresee a lawsuit where someone pits the safe workplace requirement against being made to go back to campus. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 3, 2021, at 2:14 PM, Baharak Yousefi <byousefi@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Chris, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks very much for following up on this and sharing the information with us. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What the Covid-19 Response Team at SFU is saying re the impossibility of a mandate seems to contradict what Dr. Henry said on July 27th: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> “ . . . And universities are looking at what are the measures they need to take in their setting to make it as safe as possible . . . that may mean if you’re living in residence that you need to have proof of immunization.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It1afVleAqA >>>> >>>> >>>> Part about post sec is at about 42:12 to 43:12. >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> Baharak >>>> >>>> >>>> _____________ >>>> Baharak Yousefi (she/her) >>>> Librarian for History, International Studies, Graduate Liberal Studies, & Political Science >>>> Belzberg Library | Simon Fraser University | 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1G4 >>>> Occupied Xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) & Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Territories | #LandBack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Christopher Pavsek <cpavsek@sfu.ca> >>>> Sent: August 3, 2021 1:54 PM >>>> To: Baharak Yousefi >>>> Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>>> Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable >>>> >>>> Hello--I was curious about this and queried the president's office/VPA. I specifically asked if the University or the Province had made the decision to forego a vaccine mandate. >>>> >>>> I got a response from the Covid-19 Response Team at SFU. >>>> >>>> This is what they said: >>>> >>>> "Regarding mandatory vaccinations, there is no requirement for proof of immunization under the University Act, making it impossible for the university to establish such a mandate, which would also be difficult to enforce. There are no universities in British Columbia currently requiring proof of immunization. All post-secondary institutions continue to monitor the advice of the province and will take the Provincial Health Officer’s direction on this." >>>> >>>> >>>> My reading of this is that the university could mandate more than the province is recommending--masks, or distancing, or other measures perhaps?--but not vaccines. >>>> >>>> I thought this might clarify things a bit. >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 29, 2021, at 11:28 AM, Baharak Yousefi <byousefi@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Chris, >>>> >>>> My understanding is that yesterday Dr. Henry said it is up to each university/college to set their standards above and beyond provincial health orders. >>>> >>>> I didn't hear this myself, but here's the link to Liza Yuzda's reporting. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Baharak >>>> >>>> _________________ >>>> Baharak Yousefi (she/her) >>>> Librarian for History, International Studies, Graduate Liberal Studies, & Political Science >>>> Belzberg Library | Simon Fraser University | 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1G4 >>>> Occupied Xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) & Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Territories | #LandBack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Christopher Pavsek <cpavsek@sfu.ca> >>>> Sent: July 29, 2021 11:11 AM >>>> To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca >>>> Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable >>>> >>>> Regarding frustration with the university's lack of a vaccine requirement: my understanding, which might be incorrect, is that SFU must follow provincial direction on any vaccine mandate. That direction comes from the Ministry of Health and the Min. of Adv. Education, or whatever it's called these days. >>>> >>>> Correct me if I'm wrong. >>>> >>>> So if faculty and staff want to pressure the university to implement a vaccine requirement, pressure would have to be applied to the university and to the relevant levels of government. >>>> >>>> Such requirements are common in the US. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 29, 2021, at 10:46 AM, Lyn Bartram <lyn@sfu.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-without-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination-on-campus-we-will-face-another/ >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Lyn Bartram >>>> Professor, School of Interactive Arts and Technology >>>> Director, Vancouver Institute of Visual Analytics >>>> Simon Fraser University | SRYC >>>> 250 – 13450 102nd Avenue, Surrey, B.C. V3T 0A3 >>>> v 778 782 7439 f 778 782 9422 m 604 908 9954 >>>> http://www.sfu.uca/~lyn | Skype: drlynb >>>> <OutlookEmoji-15753042296078dab3b27-0b5a-41a0-b6d6-ebe6e14c0dc9.png> >>>> >>>> >>>> ************************************** >>>> Christopher Pavsek, Ph.D., MRM-Planning >>>> Associate Professor of Film >>>> Simon Fraser University >>>> 149 West Hastings Street >>>> Vancouver, BC V6B 1H4 >>>> Canada >>>> cpavsek@sfu.ca >>>> >>>> I respectfully acknowledge that I work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. >>>> >>>> >>>> ************************************** >>>> Christopher Pavsek, Ph.D., MRM-Planning >>>> Associate Professor of Film >>>> Simon Fraser University >>>> 149 West Hastings Street >>>> Vancouver, BC V6B 1H4 >>>> Canada >>>> cpavsek@sfu.ca >>>> >>>> I respectfully acknowledge that I work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bernhard Riecke, PhD >>>> Professor | School of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT) >>>> Director of iSpace Lab | TEDxSFU license holder & speaker coach >>>> My TEDx talk: "Could Virtual Reality make us more human?" >>>> Simon Fraser University Surrey | 250 - 13450 102 Avenue, Surrey, BC V3T 0A3, Canada >>>> Office: 2822 (Podium 2) | iSpaceLab.com/Riecke | SIAT homepage >>>> E-mail: ber1@sfu.ca | skype: thebernie >>>> >>>> >>> > -- Irene Pang Assistant Professor School for International Studies Simon Fraser University |