Month: January 2022

As countries around the world grapple with the issue of mandatory vaccinations, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt the Biden administration’s approach a major blow on Thursday. It blocked the president’s workplace vaccine mandate, allowing only a significantly diminished provision for federally funded health-care providers.

The court ruled that Biden had crossed a bridge too far. He was not alone in his disappointment. Here in Canada, efforts to increase vaccination uptake are becoming increasingly necessary, even as they become more fraught with legal challenges.

The Omicron surge has brought with it significantly increased impatience with the unvaccinated, as well as growing support for further penalties against the unvaccinated. The result? A sudden and unexpected exigency for political leaders across the world.

For Canada, a middle power that has long been able to straddle the varying interests and customs of its allies, the divergence in global responses is becoming painfully clear.

Quebec Premier François Legault’s proposed imposition of a health tax on the unvaccinated is aligned with the more drastic measures taken by some European nations. Given that Quebecers favour stronger restrictions on the unvaccinated compared to the rest of Canada, the premier’s unforgiving approach may play well politically — at least at home.

Yet in his eagerness to appease the exasperation of the vaccinated majority, Legault’s tax policy failed to provide clarity on exemptions or process, raising questions about its legality — never mind, from a policy perspective, its impact on marginalized groups.

The province is not the only Canadian jurisdiction facing obstacles in its attempts to pressure the unvaccinated.

Recently, the prime minister has been markedly hostile toward the unvaccinated, referring to them as racists and misogynists. In riling up the vaccinated majority, Justin Trudeau was following French President Emmanuel Macron. And given the difference in his English and French remarks, one is left to wonder if Trudeau was playing specifically to a Quebec audience with his tone.

The federal government, having largely retreated by designating mandatory vaccinations a provincial matter, managed to fumble its own attempts to ratify mandatory vaccinations for truckers crossing the U.S. border this week.

Even though the Canada Border Services Agency said Canadian drivers would be exempt, a day later, Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said that was an “error” and, in fact, drivers would be subject to the measure. The predicable result was an instant protest by the trucking industry and dark warnings that the last-minute measure will exacerbate supply shortages, estimating it could lose 10 to 15 per cent of its workforce.

All of these challenges reflect a serious concern for political leaders intent on meeting the demands of pandemic-weary constituents. While public opinion is very supportive of widespread government intervention toward vaccination, the legal dimensions and the international perspective are a different beast.

The case in the U.S. will no doubt be cited as a significant legal litmus test of the ability to enforce sweeping orders, and might well cause a knock-on effect in other jurisdictions.

For Australia, the Novak Djokovic drama made this all very real last week. It demonstrated above all that politicians now face overwhelming public pressure to clamp down on behaviour that makes a mockery of the sacrifices people have made — even if it involves the world’s number one tennis player.

Djokovic’s flaunting of the restrictions and the revelation he had gained a questionable travel exemption were just too much. For a country that had endured some of the most severe lockdowns and border restrictions, the eruption of anger was predictable.

Yet, while Australians sit at one end of the spectrum, we cannot forget that six well-educated and informed Supreme Court justices sit at the other.

Understanding that gulf of opinion is crucial for dealing with the anti-vaccine issue. With our health-care system facing another crushing spate of infections and public patience wearing thin, our options are running out.

The House of Windsor is no stranger to a good scandal: The abdication crisis. Charles and Camilla. “Megxit.”

But far from an episode of “The Crown,” which contains the fallout within a neat 58 minutes, all of these crises have had long-term repercussions for the institution of the monarchy. Specifically, they have undermined its image as being the paragon of those quintessential British values: probity, having thick skin and above all, steadiness.

Yet, for all these issues, Queen Elizabeth II still reigns, Buckingham Palace still stands and the Commonwealth remains an important political force in the world. Indeed, the British monarchy is matched only by the Vatican as a centuries-old institution that has maintained its stature in a rapidly changing world.

That was, of course, until Prince Andrew.

New revelations emerged this week about the Duke of York’s efforts to stymie a sexual abuse suit launched by one of Jeffrey Epstein’s accusers. For years, the Royal Family has been rocked by Andrew’s long-time association with the convicted sex offender. And for years, Andrew has done the bare minimum to deny any wrongdoing.

But now, as his legal team pushes back hard against accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the charade seems to be ending.

Having botched his primary attempt to publicly refute the claims — an interview with BBC heavyweight Emily Maitlis — Andrew has instead tried to weasel his way out of the conversation altogether.

First, he tried to avoid being served with legal papers.

Failing that, his team now contends that Andrew is immune from the civil suit under the restrictions of a previous Epstein settlement.

To make their point, they have claimed that Andrew qualifies as a “potential defendant” in Giuffre’s earlier case against Epstein. For all the legal complexity of the assertion, it seems to put the lie to Andrew’s claim to never having met Giuffre.

No one who has seen Andrew’s BBC interview will be surprised. As time goes on, his excuses grow more brazen, contrived and bizarre. What’s more, the tactics of his legal team represent a new low for the monarchy in their depravity and detachment from reality.

And therein lies the real problem.

In the past, when scandals have thrown the royals’ unsavoury private lives into public view, the moral and religious authority of their brand has been eroded. But the stain of Andrew’s accusations is something different. Unlike the litany of affairs, divorces and other human failings, his alleged behaviour appears criminal — and his response, simply unacceptable.

Rather than clear his name, the duke seems content to feign indignation at the idea that he should be accountable to anyone. In doing so, he has left his family with little alternative but to remain silent about the allegations. The result makes them appear entirely out of touch at a time when they urgently need to appear modern and suited for the moment.

For example, Andrew retains his military titles and remains a member of the Royal Family — albeit one removed from public life. This seems bizarre given his nephew, Prince Harry, was stripped of his own military titles for abdicating his royal duties and leaving Britain.

It stinks of hypocrisy.

All this takes place amidst a major shift for the House of Windsor. Nearly 70 years into her reign, many are certain it will be impossible for the queen’s successor to enjoy the same popularity and presence on the world stage. After all, the British royals are the exception, not the norm, among a litany of European monarchies whose faces are entirely unknown outside their own borders.

If Prince Andrew settles his case with Giuffre — likely to the tune of millions of pounds — he and his family could ultimately pay a much greater price. Not only does the duke run the risk of being confirmed as a sex offender, but he could also potentially be confirmed a liar. And what’s even worse, one whose own family abetted his lies.