log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D and the rising pandemic

Zardnaar

Legend
We don't think we have a single blanket law on the matter.

There are cases where a guardian who refuses to allow a child to be treated may be considered abusing the child, and have the choice taken from them.
Ah. They can change it here with an act of parliment. That only requires a simple majority in parliment.

They've also decleared an emergency using some law from 1956 but it's never been tested.

There's talk of making disinformation illegal but once again that's a violation of that act.

Election next month, the odds of the opposition winning is 0.1% apparently and Jacinda is the most popular PM ever.

She's on track to win an outright majority of the popular vote (hasn't happened since 1951). She'll have a mandate to basically do whatever the hell she wants.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The ADA is designed to let the differently abled individuals get about their lives independently, including mandates for things like wheelchair accessibility. Furthermore, the ADA has particular clauses that say it does not supersede regulations designed to inhibit the spread of disease. IOW, by its own terms, It doesn’t apply at all.

"Nothing in this subchapter shall require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. The term "direct threat" means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services."
First, just as with our discussion of "immanence" earlier, there is not a clear ruling that an asymptomatic person would constitute a "direct threat". You and I both think they should, but that has never been legally defined or ruled on. It's not that I'm saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it's an opinion we both share, and I don't trust the rest of the world to agree with us.

Second, the hypothetical store/service/place could theoretically provide a number of auxiliary aids and services to eliminate the risk. A greater degree of distancing, providing an alternate barrier, etc. What you just quoted is exactly why the store can't simply tell a person to wear a mask or leave (without offering alternatives; if they claim they have a disability; insert qualifier here).

If you’re making this legal claim, you have to provide evidence of it. You could refuse to provide such evidence at the store, but that means we go back to the default setting of private property: they don’t have to let you in.
I'm not disagreeing with you about facts on this, I'm disagreeing with the process. A store can't ask for proof of a disability. Police can't force you to give proof of a disability. A police officer won't remove someone from private property without a complaint from the store.

So, if a person refuses to wear mask but is otherwise well behaved, what happens? A store has to follow strict guidelines on what questions they're allowed to ask, offer alternatives, and then ask them to leave. If they ask the wrong questions they can get sued. If they believe the person is lying about a disability, they can kick them out anyway. But if that person is telling the truth, they can be sued. If that person is lying, the store can be sued anyway, and the store will have to wait until the case goes to court to find out if their suspicions about lying are correct. Or, the minimum wage employee can just shrug and walk away. I think that's why you only hear about cases of people being arrested for disorderly or drunken conduct. People who refuse to wear masks but otherwise control themselves can skirt the law with near zero risk of being called out for it.

This discussion reminds me of a joke: I was standing at a crosswalk one day with another man. My light tuned green, but cars kept coming so I couldn't cross. The man say to me "You know, you can start walking. The law says they have to stop.". I say "The law won't protect me if they don't".

Back in the 70s (as I recall) a different kind of masking order was being challenged on religious grounds. A particular (lucative and highly desired) job required a mask to protect the employees. Some employees who wanted the jobs had religious practices that prevented them from cutting their facial hair, and facial hair compromised the effectiveness of the masks. The employees lost. Even a claim of religious discrimination was insufficient to defeat the masking requirement.
Employer/employee relationship, not a business/customer one. Where the risks were more clearly defined and no possible safety workarounds were identified. And, since it was religious and not a disability, the ADA didn't apply.
 



Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
First, just as with our discussion of "immanence" earlier, there is not a clear ruling that an asymptomatic person would constitute a "direct threat". You and I both think they should, but that has never been legally defined or ruled on. It's not that I'm saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it's an opinion we both share, and I don't trust the rest of the world to agree with us.
In all likelihood, there isn’t going to be a new ruling on “immanence”- that ship sailed with the declaration of epidemic/pandemic in the context of this particular disease. Asymptomatic transmission of C19 is a major known disease vector- that fact won’t be lost on any judge.

Second, the hypothetical store/service/place could theoretically provide a number of auxiliary aids and services to eliminate the risk. A greater degree of distancing, providing an alternate barrier, etc. What you just quoted is exactly why the store can't simply tell a person to wear a mask or leave (without offering alternatives; if they claim they have a disability; insert qualifier here).
I think you’re misunderstanding the dynamics of what’s going on.

First, the laws of private property- the first of which is the right of exclusion- means precisely that a store can have a dress code that bars entry to those who don’t comply with it. If they make a mask part of their terms and conditions of entry, they don’t have to let you in. If you claim a disability that would grant you an exception, they STILL don’t have to let you in as long as they have other “reasonable accommodations” such as online shopping, a personal shopper to do your shopping for you, curbside service, etc. Thing is, a “reasonable accommodation” isn’t necessarily the accommodation you want. They still don’t have to let you in.

Second, if they’re a private club- the aforementioned Sam’s and Costcos of the world- the ADA has less power over them. And they can simply revoke your membership (for any reason as long as it isn’t an illegal one or disallowed by the membership agreement).

Third, their position is further reinforced by governmental masking orders and other public health regs, which have greater legal force historically than things like the ADA.

I'm not disagreeing with you about facts on this, I'm disagreeing with the process. A store can't ask for proof of a disability. Police can't force you to give proof of a disability. A police officer won't remove someone from private property without a complaint from the store.
As previously stated, public health regulations are the ones with the greater force of law behind them. As noted in the brief Cadence linked to: “Based upon the CDC guidance, a business or government agency may require customers to wear a face mask to limit the spread of COVID-19. “

The ADA & HIPPA statutes and case law carve out “need to know” exceptions on inquiries into a person’s medical history. Since businesses are the metaphorical front line of enforcing those orders, their need to know who needs accommodation means that you can be asked if your anti-mask rationale has an underlying medical reason in order to enforce said orders. But as noted, even if you have such a reason, they don’t have to permit you entry. In fact, in places where the masking orders are strongest, they may not legally be permitted to do so.

So, if a person refuses to wear mask but is otherwise well behaved, what happens? A store has to follow strict guidelines on what questions they're allowed to ask, offer alternatives, and then ask them to leave. If they ask the wrong questions they can get sued.
While that’s true, such a suit is unlikely to succeed under current conditions, e.g. the declaration of pandemic. Defending the suit would not be a trivial cost, but the odds of successful defense would be virtually assured, given the “need to know” exception and government orders in place. Hell, there’s even a chance a court would toss the lawsuit as frivolous.

If they believe the person is lying about a disability, they can kick them out anyway. But if that person is telling the truth, they can be sued.
Same as above.

If that person is lying, the store can be sued anyway, and the store will have to wait until the case goes to court to find out if their suspicions about lying are correct. Or, the minimum wage employee can just shrug and walk away. I think that's why you only hear about cases of people being arrested for disorderly or drunken conduct. People who refuse to wear masks but otherwise control themselves can skirt the law with near zero risk of being called out for it.
Can? Sometimes. But it’s very fact dependent.

Depends on how stores choose to enforce policy. There’s numerous videos of otherwise orderly anti-maskers being denied entry or escorted out from stores around the USA. My aunt works in a private retail club where even peaceful anti-maskers have had their memberships revoked...along with everyone else on the account.

Employer/employee relationship, not a business/customer one. Where the risks were more clearly defined and no possible safety workarounds were identified. And, since it was religious and not a disability, the ADA didn't apply.


Where the standard of duty was higher, and the claim was based on a strongly defended constitutional right. IOW, the company had to meet a higher level of justification for their denial than would a company trying to enforce a masking order based on their dress code and/or a government masking order.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Not sure how it works in the USA but here our Bill if Rights Act 1990 specifically gives you the right to refuse treatment.
So you say failing to provide for your kids healthcare cannot result in them taken away? It sure can here. Refusing treatment for treatable illnesses for your child on many things can result in you losing custody of them as a repercussion if they are still alive or jail when they arent.

I have heard some arguing that many poor people aware of that implicit possibility is why so few are anti vaxxers and that it is all privileged karen's and kens who anti-vaxx.
 

I think you’re misunderstanding the dynamics of what’s going on.

...which have greater legal force historically...
...
While that’s true, such a suit is unlikely to succeed ...
...
Can? Sometimes. But it’s very fact dependent.
...
Depends on how...
I think you're misunderstanding the difference between understanding and agreeing. I understand the points you are making. I simply don't agree with your faith that things will turn out the way they're supposed to. I cite the case of Murphy v. 2020 as evidence.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
So you say failing to provide for your kids healthcare cannot result in them taken away? It sure can here. Refusing treatment for treatable illnesses for your child on many things can result in you losing custody of them as a repercussion if they are still alive or jail when they arent.

I have heard some arguing that many poor people aware of that implicit possibility is why so few are anti vaxxers and that it is all privileged karen's and kens who anti-vaxx.
If you're outright neglecting kids then yes social services can intervene.

Refusing a vaccine doesn't fall under that.

It gets murky with say parents refusing treatment for kids. There are laws but I'm not a lawyer.

NZ judges fall a bit more in the spirit of the law than the letter though.

For example the mandatory qurantine isn't strictly mandatory as they can't enforce it as such. They can at the border.

There's an anti mask/restrictions protest planned for tomorrow. People are like why are the cops not stopping it since it's going to violate the 100 person gathering limit.

The cops did nothing when BLM protested during lockdown either breaking the lockdown rules.


Parts 11, 15,16.

As written the cops can't really enforce much.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
In all likelihood, there isn’t going to be a new ruling on “immanence”- that ship sailed with the declaration of epidemic/pandemic in the context of this particular disease. Asymptomatic transmission of C19 is a major known disease vector- that fact won’t be lost on any judge.
I would like to believe so, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court keeps disabusing me of that notion. Even now, while we're seeing record levels of positive tests (for WI) and the UW-Madison is quarantining whole dorms with thousands of students, they slapped a temporary injunction on Dane County's declaration that schools have to use distance learning for grades 3-12. While it might make sense to review the county's powers over schools in the county from a legal sense, the temporary injunction is going to allow schools to bring kids of all levels back for face-to-face learning. A smarter move, one that recognized asymptomatic transmission is a major vector, would have left the order in place so as to not let the horse out of the barn, so to speak.
Seriously, I can't underline strenuously enough how much judicial partisanship/politicking can derange their decisions.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
The Make Aotearoa Great Again (MAGA) crowd out in Auckland.

579482a.jpg


Time to turn in my Kiwis can't be this stupid card. They're even using American symbols lol.

One of the nutjob parties waving their signs around. Sub 1% doesn't get you into parliment even with proportional representation.

Wonder if bulldozing Auckland into the Hauraki Gulf is a good idea?
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Second, the hypothetical store/service/place could theoretically provide a number of auxiliary aids and services to eliminate the risk.
They could. But they don't have to. They are not bound by the ADA, or anything else, to offer you the accommodation you request. They merely have to give you a reasonable one.

What you just quoted is exactly why the store can't simply tell a person to wear a mask or leave (without offering alternatives; if they claim they have a disability; insert qualifier here).
Um, would you go back and please check where anyone other than you suggested that course of action for the business? Because, I'm pretty sure you won't find it. Which would mean that you are engaged in a strawman argument. Maybe bring yourself around to what we are actually saying, hm? Thanks.

So, if a person refuses to wear mask but is otherwise well behaved, what happens?
"I'm terribly sorry, but there's current orders/regulations about wearing masks in public places. We have to ask you to remain outside the building. How might we otherwise meet your needs?"

The store doesn't actually have to ask you any questions about what your health issue is. It is irrelevant, a boogeyman.

If they ask the wrong questions they can get sued.
Having spoken with a friend of mine who works in disability rights, this is not quite correct.

Technically, they can ask. What they cannot do is require an answer as a condition of service. If they ask, "Sir, could you tell me what your issue is, so that I can help you better?" they are not subject to suit. If they say, "Prove to me that you need that service dog, or you cannot come in!" then they are in trouble.

If that person is lying, the store can be sued anyway, and the store will have to wait until the case goes to court to find out if their suspicions about lying are correct. Or, the minimum wage employee can just shrug and walk away.
You continue to miss how this is not an all-or-nothing, give them full service or none situation. "Sir, if you can give me a list of the goods you need, I'll get one of our staff to gather them up and bring them out to you," is a perfectly reasonable accommodation for retail services. So is, "Please see our website for ordering." And so on.

I really suggest you not continue to miss this.

If lawsuit is your boogeyman, there's a couple points to hit:

1) There's a limit to how much this suit is worth. They cannot bleed you dry for this, and in fact, unless a pattern of behavior of not accommodating people with disabilities is established. A first offense generally gets you a warning and orders to change your policies or establishment to deal with the issue properly. So, one yahoo will generally get you a visit from a bureaucrat, not a hundred thousand dollars in the hole.

2) With a mask order in place, if the proprietor lets someone in without a mask, they technically suffer legal exposure from everyone else on the premises, who is now being put at risk. If any of them come down with covid-19, they have grounds for a civil suit. If anyone dies and that is connected to your establishment where you didn't follow the rules, now you may even have a wrongful death suit on your hands.

Thank you, the threat that a yutz trying to weaponize the ADA is paltry compared to the millions you may be on the hook for in a wrongful death suit.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
If you're outright neglecting kids then yes social services can intervene.
As I said the difference is a decision to rule/declare that not vaccinating is indeed neglecting and not providing fundamental healthcare. I am not saying they have done this... just that the step is not really that huge Tetanus and Rabies can you picture an anti-vaxxers kids there are some horrible ways to die and these are what they withhold protection from.

It almost seems like Munchausens by proxy.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
As I said the difference is a decision to rule/declare that not vaccinating is indeed neglecting and not providing fundamental healthcare. I am not saying they have done this... just that the step is not really that huge Tetanus and Rabies can you picture an anti-vaxxers kids there are some horrible ways to die and these are what they withhold protection from.

It almost seems like Munchausens by proxy.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act 11 Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment – New Zealand Legislation

"Everyone has the right to refuse any medical treatment"

Unlike the US constitution it's easy enough to change at least in theory.

Same bill specifically let's you worship and associate in public hence why the cops can't do much about protests and breaking rules in lockdown.

Not sure how they're enforcing qurantine rules.
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
I would like to believe so, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court keeps disabusing me of that notion. Even now, while we're seeing record levels of positive tests (for WI) and the UW-Madison is quarantining whole dorms with thousands of students, they slapped a temporary injunction on Dane County's declaration that schools have to use distance learning for grades 3-12. While it might make sense to review the county's powers over schools in the county from a legal sense, the temporary injunction is going to allow schools to bring kids of all levels back for face-to-face learning. A smarter move, one that recognized asymptomatic transmission is a major vector, would have left the order in place so as to not let the horse out of the barn, so to speak.
Seriously, I can't underline strenuously enough how much judicial partisanship/politicking can derange their decisions.
One thing to remember about most judges, be they partisan hacks or scrupulously ethical neutrals is that the orders they issue are going to be defined and constrained by the arguments made before them by the appearing parties and the evidence those parties present to support their assertions.* Make a big enough mistake in your presentation- or accumulate enough minor ones- and a case that SHOULD have gone one way will go the other.



* hyperpartisan hacks are a different story.
 

Mikeythorn

Explorer
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act 11 Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment – New Zealand Legislation

"Everyone has the right to refuse any medical treatment"

Unlike the US constitution it's easy enough to change at least in theory.

Same bill specifically let's you worship and associate in public hence why the cops can't do much about protests and breaking rules in lockdown.

Not sure how they're enforcing qurantine rules.
The Bill of Rights can be trumped by any other piece of legislation if need be. But only after the draft has passed through a special committee appointed by the Ministry of Justice, and that committee agrees (I was once part of a team that drafted a Bill and had to take it before that committee - twice). For example the Mental Health Act allows for compulsory treatment in specific circumstances. The Health Act can also require compulsory incarceration in the case of infectious illnesses. Pre-Covid I recall a case where a guy with TB ended up in prison because he kept leaving hospital while infectious.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
The Bill of Rights can be trumped by any other piece of legislation if need be. But only after the draft has passed through a special committee appointed by the Ministry of Justice, and that committee agrees (I was once part of a team that drafted a Bill and had to take it before that committee - twice). For example the Mental Health Act allows for compulsory treatment in specific circumstances. The Health Act can also require compulsory incarceration in the case of infectious illnesses. Pre-Covid I recall a case where a guy with TB ended up in prison because he kept leaving hospital while infectious.
True they can get around it if they have to.

Our cops are reasonably laid back though. In Dunedin the 4:20 crowd occupied the cop shop for a smoke up. No arrests.

They don't really break up protests or anything. Don't carry guns or riot gear.

Coronavirus: More than a thousand turn out for anti-lockdown rally in Auckland

There's one in the photo.

Been to some epic street parties down here they should have broken up.
 

Hussar

Legend
As I said the difference is a decision to rule/declare that not vaccinating is indeed neglecting and not providing fundamental healthcare. I am not saying they have done this... just that the step is not really that huge Tetanus and Rabies can you picture an anti-vaxxers kids there are some horrible ways to die and these are what they withhold protection from.

It almost seems like Munchausens by proxy.
Just to nitpick - you don't get vaccinations for Tetanus or Rabies unless you have a specific reason for getting them. It's not a general vaccination. At least, I know Rabies isn't. Tetanus isn't in Canada. (I know, because I needed tetanus shots after an accident. Thankfully didn't need rabies shots. Yikes those are brutal).

And, on the point about Bills of Rights and things like that, I imagine New Zealand is similar to Canada in that our Bill of Rights (Charter of Rights in Canada) is based on British Common Law (IIRC - that's the right term. Damn, it's been a long time since I studied this) which means that your rights are kind of inverse to how they are elucidated in the States. IOW, in Canada (and I imagine NZ is the same) you have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except what the Charter says you can't do. So, we automatically have the right to bear arms, for example, even though that will never be specified in our Charter. Our Charter has nothing to say about what rights you have, just what limitations there are on them.

It's a different approach and it makes comparisons between countries a bit difficult.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Just to nitpick - you don't get vaccinations for Tetanus or Rabies unless you have a specific reason for getting them. It's not a general vaccination. At least, I know Rabies isn't. Tetanus isn't in Canada. (I know, because I needed tetanus shots after an accident. Thankfully didn't need rabies shots. Yikes those are brutal).

And, on the point about Bills of Rights and things like that, I imagine New Zealand is similar to Canada in that our Bill of Rights (Charter of Rights in Canada) is based on British Common Law (IIRC - that's the right term. Damn, it's been a long time since I studied this) which means that your rights are kind of inverse to how they are elucidated in the States. IOW, in Canada (and I imagine NZ is the same) you have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except what the Charter says you can't do. So, we automatically have the right to bear arms, for example, even though that will never be specified in our Charter. Our Charter has nothing to say about what rights you have, just what limitations there are on them.

It's a different approach and it makes comparisons between countries a bit difficult.
I had to you for flu vaccine in lockdown.

Nurse had PPE on and had to sit in a chair in an old garage.

May as well have used me as a dart board.

Looks like our Bill of Rights is more the Bill of Suggestions. Not that I distrust the government can't really complain in that regard.

There's talk of making malicious lies illegal. No idea how they'll make that work.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
"Everyone has the right to refuse any medical treatment"
(I am pretty sure this is fairly common here too even without it being constitutionally defined). However the laws I am talking about are those about child welfare ie those about caretaker Neglect and child endangerment and abuse laws. And refusing "needed" medical treatment is defined as neglect/abuse (sometimes prosecuted the same here)
Just to nitpick - you don't get vaccinations for Tetanus or Rabies unless you have a specific reason for getting them. It's not a general vaccination. At least, I know Rabies isn't. Tetanus isn't in Canada. (I know, because I needed tetanus shots after an accident. Thankfully didn't need rabies shots. Yikes those are brutal).
Yes I picked them as examples where it seems most likely one could say not providing these would OBVIOUSLY be neglect of needed treatment or abuse as they can be done after the fact. Rabies always is but in the states Tetanus is not it's done preemptively and "required" and lasts well over 10 years, I see them as a potential starting point legally. The fear of the "evil" vaccine is not necessarily going to distinguish.

In the US all 50 states have laws that require school children to be vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis ; hepatitis (HBV); measles and rubella (MMR vaccine); polio (IPV vaccine); and varicella (chickenpox). The laws allowing non-medical exemptions are problematic.

The current state of affairs has people doing lawsuits against parents who did not vaccinate their children who subsequent fell ill and infected others. So its basically civil court pressure instead of being treated as neglect.

If a parent does not comply with a school’s policy, the child will not be allowed to attend, and the parent can then be arrested for the child’s truancy. So many anti-vaxxers choose to homeschool their children (difficulties doing this may also be why its well off people who anti-vaxx it is a "first world" problem )

So the law is really isn't protecting these children in the current form I think it should.
 


COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top