VAN MAREN: Another vax fighter gets to test religious conscience exemption

Jonathon Van Maren is a communications consultant with The Acacia Group, a legal consultancy providing services to churches, charities, non-profits and religious institutionsTwo years after the end of the COVID pandemic, the ripple effects of the political, legal and social chaos that roiled Canada are still being felt. Last month, two Albertan men were sentenced for their roles in the Coutts blockade last month, one of them to jail time. The Trudeau government is still pursuing an appeal against the Federal Court for ruling that the draconian freezing of bank accounts during the Freedom Convoy — without court orders — was a violation of Charter rights. The government minister who oversaw this extralegal crackdown, Chrystia Freeland, is running to be the next prime minister.And even though restrictions have long been lifted, the clash between conscience rights and the now-defunct COVID regime is ongoing.Exhibit A is a case currently before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.Thomas Elliott, a practicing Christian, found himself suspended without pay during the pandemic by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., an oil and natural gas company. Elliott had declined the company’s vaccine mandate, citing his moral opposition to taking vaccines that were associated with abortion. According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the HRT has “ordered a hearing on whether personal interpretations of Scripture are legitimate grounds for defying a workplace order.”Elliott’s case is particularly interesting because he has cited specific scripture in his opposition to taking the COVID vaccine. Many Canadians declined to take the vaccine (or took it under protest) for a host of reasons, and in many cases they cited “conscience objections” that were vague and only loosely associated with religious beliefs. Arguably — and this would be my view — forcing any citizen to submit to a vaccine against their will is immoral, regardless of the reason. But Elliot’s rationale makes his case “a key test of religious freedom.”The case was previously dismissed by human rights commissioners, but Wilma Shim, an adjudicator with the Alberta Human Rights Commission and former Crown prosecutor, overruled their decision. “There is a genuine issue to be resolved,” she stated. “[Elliott] is a Christian who follows the Bible as the one and only true word of God. The complainant indicated vaccines were developed and tested through the use of fetal cell lines derived from abortion. The complainant believes abortion is murder and that to take the vaccine would be complicit with murder.”Elliott, who describes himself as a “born again, charismatic Christian,” cited the Ten Commandments — specifically, “Thou Shalt Not Kill”— as his reason for resisting the vaccine mandate. According to Blackstock’s Reporter, his company, Canadian Natural Resources, is insisting that “there was no mention of vaccines in a letter Elliott submitted from his pastor,” but Shim stated that “applications of spiritual beliefs need not be strictly itemized to be legitimate.”Indeed, thus far the Tribunal’s statements have been refreshing in their moral grasp of the case:"This is not a case where the complainant has made a bare assertion that his Christian faith requires him to refuse vaccination. He has provided what he alleges is Scriptural authority for his belief that accepting the vaccine would be a sin. The complainant stated adherence to Scripture is a tenet of the Christian faith and that his eternal salvation depends on obedience to God’s will as expressed in Scripture. God has the power to grant eternal life in heaven or cast one into hell. The complainant provided scriptural authority for these statements. The complainant clearly has sincere and deeply held beliefs."While there is disagreement among Christian ethicists as to whether vaccines or other treatments with unethical origins can be utilized, there is no disagreement about Elliott’s central claim that aborted fetal cell lines were used in the testing and development of many vaccines, including the Covid vaccines (in particular, the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines). Although it is untrue to say that the vaccines contain cells from aborted babies, fetal cell lines obtained from aborted babies, sometimes decades ago, are still used.Indeed, research indicates that the connection between vaccine development and abortion is more horrifying that previously understood. As an additional side note, it is heartening to see an adjudicator affirm the legitimacy of the view — which I personally hold — that abortion is murder.Blacklock’s Reporter noted that the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal relied for its ruling on the 2004 Supreme Court decision Syndicat Northcrest v. Anselem, which stated that: “The state is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma” and that “Sincerity of belief simply implies an honesty of belief and the Court’s role is to ensure a presently asserted belief is in good faith, neither fictitious nor capricious.” The justices also ruled that the consistency or literalness of a person’s beliefs were not relevant. By that standard, Thomas Elliott has a very good case indeed — and a victory for Elliott would be a triumph for all Canadians who value the swiftly eroding conscience protections in this country.Jonathon Van Maren is a communications consultant with The Acacia Group, a legal consultancy providing services to churches, charities, non-profits and religious institutions.

VAN MAREN: Another vax fighter gets to test religious conscience exemption

Related Stories