this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
236 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

10675 readers
419 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Canada just lost its measles-free status. So here’s the question..

If an unvaccinated child spreads measles to someone else’s kid, why shouldn’t the parents be liable in small-claims court?

I’m not talking about criminal charges, just basic responsibility. If your choice creates the risk you should have to prove you weren’t the reason someone else’s child got sick.

Is that unreasonable?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

How are you going to deal with pesky things like religious freedoms and the Mennonites/similar cults?

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They are still free to practice their religion.

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

And if vaccinations are against their religion? I'm not siding with them btw just curious how other people want to handle cult members in regards to holding them liable.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I still think they should be held liable, this is a preventable disease.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This right here, there's nothing preventing the religion from being followed. And being in a religion doesn't make you not responsible for your actions.

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago

I doubt they'd see it that way and pull out the ol' persecution complex but I agree with you guys. They can quarantine at least.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 14 points 1 week ago

“Religious freedom” doesn’t give people the right to endanger public health.

[–] running_ragged@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

If they choose to not vaccinate their child, fine. But they shouldn’t then expose other people to their children’s infections.

It gets messier when they are communicable before symptoms are showing. But if my Sally and your Bobby were at a party with 10 other kids, and the next day bobby is showing symtoms, and then a week later a binch of kids at the party are as well, then they should be held responsible.

Especially if they had reason to believe Bobby had been exposed to it days prior.

Make your choices, but if your religious choices are that important to you, then account for how that impacts other choices you make, and don’t put other people at risk.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Fun fact: ancient religious texts don't have shit to say about modern medical practices.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

Quarrentine - No public schools or markets, or public places if there is an outbreak and unvaccinated.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ignore them when they harm society. They don't get the freedom to commit murder and they shouldn't get the freedom to not follow public health requirement just because they have some mumbo jumbo excuse.

[–] veroxii@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Gonna show my age here and I'm not from the USA, but I remember in the 80s the doctors and nurses would come to the school one day, we'd all have to line up, and we all got vaccinated with something. Pretty sure there was no parental consent involved.

We've gotten a bit too soft on some things.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

I got those needle parades in the 90's in the area I grew up in (Atlantic Canada), in much the same manner.

It wasn't a choice for us and we didn't have outbreaks.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Religious freedom can go suck a dick when it harms other people.

According to the Church of the JustPulledANewReligionOutOfMyAss, our Chief Papa Ghost said I need to break your kneecaps then push you onto a busy highway: your sacrifice is nothing personal, but if I don't do it, I'll spend eternity being spanked by fire goats. Doesn't make sense to me either, but Chief Papa Ghost works in mysterious ways, so I don't have a choice, you see? It's my religion!

...except if I actually tried that, I'd spend the rest of my life in prison, cuz even religious freedom doesn't give me the right to kill people 'because God'.

At least not directly: I can still kill you without consequence by spreading a completely avoidable pathogen to you, but giving that scenario the "wtf?!" treatment is pretty much why OP made this thread, lol.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, Chief Papa Ghost had a kid out of wedlock with a lower-dimensional being, and it just so happens that he's made of BBQ twist Fritos and Rootbeer, so I'm gonna go commune.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 week ago

You keep them out of public schools to reduce the chance of them exposing other people as much as possible. Their co-religionists aren't likely to press charges, and many of these extreme religious groups don't want their kids in mainstream schools anyway.

In other words, you can use government-funded schools or you can refuse vaccination (and pay for your kids to attend a private school that allows unvaccinated students, or homeschool them and do the work yourself). You can't have both. That's how school vaccine mandates are supposed to work in the first place. We've just gotten way too lax about upholding and enforcing them.