Vaccine Policy negative test requirement - #Duress Disclaimer (v1.1)

Vaccine Policy negative test requirement - #Duress Disclaimer (v1.1)	https://pastebin.com/WPbjqhYz

"
Go and do likewise, for your own Province or State!
(paste into a Word document for easy reading to your supervisor each "proof of negative test" day!
MAKE THEM FACE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS IS!!!)
 - @LooseStool, 07Jan2022 1017am



>>>(page 1 of 5)
Before showing you my negative test,
I must again first ask you, as my supervisor:

Will you now make me act as if I am
in agreement with an immoral and illogical delusion,
no different than requiring me to say "2 plus 2 equals 5"?

Will you just shrug and say "Right or wrong,
that's the policy, sorry, just following orders"?

Do you really wish to proceed,
despite the potential for personal liability?

If so, I must again inform you of these facts
related to the medical testing required by our employer:






>>>(page 2 of 5)
This testing delusion is illogical because,
according to the "Labour & Employment Law
 in Alberta: A Practical Guide",
published 2018 by BLG (Borden Ladner Gervais),
one of Canada's top employment law firms,

*medical testing is only allowed if the medical condition
 would prevent the employee
 from carrying out their key job duties* , and

*to collect medical information,
employers must get CONSENT of the employees,
and also must demonstrate they need that
personal information for a reasonable purpose*.

^ It is not reasonable to claim a remote worker (alone at home!)
needs a negative COVID19 test to carry out their job duties.

It is immoral because the United Nations has declared that

*DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL TESTS are ONLY to be
carried out with the prior, FREE and
informed consent of the person concerned*.

And Alberta's College of Physicians and Surgeons requires
its members to get a patient's consent
 -- FREE of compulsion, duress or coercion --
 including before an examination or assessment.






>>>(page 3 of 5)
And even the Geneva Convention forbids wartime actors
from using COERCION to get information.

^ Obviously, the vaccine Policy's required RAPID TESTS
for COVID19 are a form of diagnostic medical tests.


And as I demonstrated to you in the previous email
according to BLG, again one of Canada's top law firms,

from the perspective of the employee it is reasonable to interpret
being forced onto Unpaid Leave Of Absence
for an INDEFINITE period of time
as essentially the same as being given
a temporary layoff aka CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
which means it is no different than
a coercive THREAT of immediately being FIRED.


Finally, and to further confirm as an "illogical delusion"
this one-sided discriminatory testing requirement
that ONLY applies to vaccine-free employees,

here is the latest "Vaccine Outcomes" data
from the province's own website:
"Table 5. Active COVID-19 cases in Alberta
by vaccine status and pre-existing condition"






>>>(page 4 of 5)
For employees under 30 years old,
the province's own website shows that, as of January 4th,
90.1% of active cases are VACCINATED people,
but none of them are required to prove
they are not carrying this contagion
by paying for a medical diagnostic test every 72 hours.

For employees aged 30-39, the province's own website shows that,
as of January 4th, it is the VACCINATED that are responsible
for 89.8% of active cases,
but none of them are forced to prove their innocence
with a negative medical diagnostic test every 72 hours.

For age 40-49, as of January 4th,
VACCINATED people make up
92.4% of active cases,
but none of them are forced to prove their innocence with a test.

For age 50-59, as of January 4th,
VACCINATED are 93.2% of active cases,
but no testing is required.

And for age 60-69, as of January 4th,
VACCINATED are 90.1% of active cases, but no testing.

Overall, VACCINATED are responsible for 90.9% of
Active Cases (29,669 out of 32,650 between age 12-69 years),
yet our employer treats them as if they pose zero infection risk.






>>>(page 5 of 5)
And so now I declare to you that I DO NOT CONSENT.

What I am being forced to do today,
Monday January 10th 2022,
I do this under DURESS,
only because of a coercive threat of being fired.

What I do now does not constitute acceptance of any offers nor agreement with any underlying presumptions.

I am not consenting FREELY,
and I reserve all rights without prejudice, including all rights related to future legal actions.



But I ask you one final time, as my supervisor:

Do you still wish to proceed, having been informed of the facts, and the potential for personal liability?