Rebel News Banner Ad - Miss Understood

Canadian Human Rights Museum responds to allegations of discrimination

Today we’re going to get the inside perspective from the Human Rights Museum, as they did respond to our questions. I asked 11 questions and got 11 answers, and I am thankful to share their response with you now.

Remove Ads

What are human rights? Unfortunately that depends on who you ask — there are different definitions, but a common understanding is that we are to treat each other fairly, and with dignity.

As Article 1 says in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

At no point does it said you need a state-sponsored QR code in order to be considered human, but if you saw my recent video on the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, you might not have realized that.

That’s right — you now need a vax pass QR code to even learn about Human Rights.

What makes this more even surreal, is that Manitoba’s state of emergency ended on October 21, 2021. You might not have realized it if you live in Manitoba, however, because their top bureaucrat Brent Roussin created a new policy, alleging that “COVID-19 is creating public health challenges in Manitoba that will continue to evolve.” This means even though the state of emergency has been lifted, the constitutionally-neglectful orders Roussin has imposed may now be an indefinite addition to the governance of Manitobans.

Unfortunately this extends to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which means they too are discriminating against their own clientele. In our last report, I tried to go to the museum and speak with a representative to find out how they felt about the situation. I got denied entry for not showing security a QR code — however, their contracted security was able to provide me with museum contact information and I reached out for comment.

Today we’re going to get the inside perspective from the Human Rights Museum, as they did respond to our questions — for which I'm thankful!

I asked 11 questions and got 11 answers, and am thankful to share their response with you now.

Q1) Dr. Israel Asper Pioneered the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, would his vision be in-line with recent adherence to COVID-19 Prevention Orders, in that they now require the museum to differentiate between those who have and have not been "fully vaccinated”, as deemed by the province?

A: The museum’s adherence to government regulations designed to combat the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic does not conflict with Israel Asper’s vision for human rights education.

Human Rights education, so they’re an education platform not an activist group, meaning they don’t need to practice what they preach. Considering they are the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, there’s a certain weight that comes with their lack of stance on such matters. However I will say, they surely failed to educate me while attempting to attend the museum.

___

Q2) On the CMHR website mandate page, it is implied that the guiding principles of the museum are, “Be sustainable”, “Be relevant”, and, “Grow engagement". Should it be the place of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights to take a stance for those who feel they are being marginalized within our society.

A: We are following laws and guidelines designed to protect the general public from a deadly pandemic. This does not conflict with our support for human rights.

If they aren’t here to practice what they preach, then what exactly do they mean by their support for human rights, do they support only some people being allocated human rights?

___

Q3) In a statement on July 20, 2021 by the CEO of the CMHR Isha Khan, after an uptick in public inquiry over vaccine related changes to museum policy, said this:

“Discrimination is defined in law as treating a person differently on the basis of some characteristic that goes to the root of who they are as a human being (where there is no reasonable cause to do so). These characteristics include age, ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, gender identity and disability. We have to be careful about equating a choice not to get vaccinated with these protected characteristics when looking at what can be considered discriminatory.”

However, in the Canadian Human rights Act, prohibited grounds of discrimination are as follows:

“For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.”

Was discrimination on the terms of marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered, not considered by CEO Khan, or were they left out of her statement for other reasons?

A: Isha Khan’s statement was intended to provide examples that illustrate why the vaccination requirement does not constitute discrimination. There was no need to cite every grounds of discrimination in order to make her point. Had she included the information you’ve cited, it would not have changed her point.

Selective definitions seem to be what’s created a divide between the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and the outside world, as the dictionary definitions seem to be lost on them.

“The treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated”

“Treating one or more members of a specified group unfairly as compared with other people”

And notably, they say their response implies that the statement by Isha Khan was custom-built to illustrate how vaccine segregation isn’t discrimination. I would have expected them to consider both sides of the situation, however it seems they were trying to make a point.

___

Q4) There are government orders in place requiring the CMHR to only accept those who have been “fully vaccinated” as deemed by the province of Manitoba, however in a story on the CMHR website calledUs vs. Them: The process of othering, the museum highlights this:

“People are different. We can use our differences as an opportunity to share and learn or we can use our differences as an excuse to build walls between us. When we highlight differences between groups of people to increase suspicion of them, to insult them or to exclude them, we are going down a path known as “othering.””

Is it a concern that the CMHR is now “othering”?

A: We are following laws and guidelines intended to protect the general public during a deadly pandemic.

This isn’t an answer, if you can read you can tell that for yourself, however it does imply that the museum doesn’t see highlighting differences amongst people and excluding based on their chosen characteristics, in this case, a QR code. I felt pretty “othered” when they excluded me from the museum, but apparently they don’t care.

___

Q5) The Canadian Museum for Human Rights has had issues respecting human rights in the pastIs it a concern that museum management may have a culture of short-sightedness on sensitive issues such as race, sex, or vaccine status?

A: We are working to disrupt systemic racism and discrimination in our workplace. You can find the most recent information about our response here: https://humanrights.ca/about/toward-greater-inclusion-and-equity.

As per the statement from Isha Khan to which you referred above, and consistent with findings from other human rights organizations, requiring visitors to be fully vaccinated does not constitutes discrimination.

Seems like they’ve been working on this for a while, and yet now we see them doubling down on this new QR code discrimination. In regards to them saying, “requiring visitors to be fully vaccinated doesn’t constitutes discrimination”, again please reference the above definitions of discrimination.

___

Q6) Did the CMHR call Winnipeg police on a man who attempted to pay for entry on or around July 28, 2021?

A: No

We saw Troy was denied access to the museum in our previous report, and cops were called to escort him away from the entrance. I had assumed it was the museum, but given this response, I’m left wondering who called the cops. I will mention, it is interesting that one member of the Asper family, is in fact the Chair Manitoba police commissioner.

___

Q7) Do you foresee the Human Rights museum removing vaccination for entry at any point in the future, or would it be preferred by the museum to retain this policy moving forward?

A: We will continue to follow the advice and laws of the Province of Manitoba and Government of Canada.

So it seems I am now indefinitely barred from attending the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. This is especially ironic considering it’s a crown corporation which receives my tax money in order operate. Would you pay roughly $22 million annually for a service you can’t use?

___

Q8) The CMHR webpage dedicated to their response measures to COVID-19, says:

“Masks must be worn by all visitors ages five and up, with exceptions for people who cannot wear face masks due to medical conditions.”

There is no mention throughout this page of exemptions for those who cannot get the vaccine, even though under the COVID-19 Prevention Orders from October 25, 2021, order 12(b), this exemption does apply. Is this the current position of the museum, or are vaccine exempt individuals permitted entry?

A: If people provide proof of medical exemption as defined and provided by the Province of Manitoba, we will allow them entry.

This is good news to hear they accept exemptions to the vaccine, even if the rest of us without QR codes are still barred from entering. Unfortunately however, this response was garnered weeks ago, and yet their COVID-19 policy has yet to reflect vaccine exemptions I asked about.

___

Q9) Has the CMHR independently from the state, sought the professional opinions of medical experts in determining an ideal policy for protecting people against COVID-19 while in attendance?

A: No. We are following the law and the health guidelines issued by the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada.

And so it seems they aren’t doing this because it keeps people safe, they’re doing it because a bureaucrat with a comfy job has told them to do so. This comes as the museum faces waves of criticisms calling them out for what most consider discriminatory.

___

Q10) The CMHR has implemented policies in relation to vaccination status, however theCMHR’s website states clearly:

“We meet or exceed public health orders”

Considering fully immunized individuals can still spread, and unfortunately, pass from COVID-19, why has the decision been made not to test everyone for COVID-19 before entry, from fully vaccinated to not at all, since such extreme measures as requiring proof of vaccination status are already in motion?

A: We are following the advice, laws and guidelines of public health officials from the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada.

How could they meet or exceed public health orders if they haven’t sought any independent medical expertise on the curation of an ideal COVID-19 policy for their establishment? Now I’m no fan of testing, but at least testing everyone for COVID-19 upon attendance would remove the premeditated discrimination over government imposed QR codes.

___

Q11) Further to the statement by Isha Khan, she says:

“We will respect the privacy rights of our visitors as they relate to personal health information, which we will not collect or store”

However in my recent visit I was asked for personal health information when attempting to enter the museum. Though I was denied entry for not showing vaccine certification, those who do enter now seem required to be screened for vaccine status. What is the minimum information the CMHR automatically collects from a visitor during their time at the museum?

A: We require proof that visitors are fully vaccinated for COVID-19, along with photo identification confirming that the visitor is in fact the person in question. We verify that information but do not collect it.

How do they contact trace?

People who have gotten the vaccine are still able to transmit, pass from, and as well may be creating new variants that otherwise put all of us in greater danger, and so I wonder how they contact trace, if they say they don’t collect any information.

Thanks for reading to the end, and if you think there’s something wrong with the QR code mandates, go to FightVaccinePassports.com. This is a donation portal on our website dedicated to supporting the legal fees for those taking the government to court over the vaccine passports. This is a Democracy Fund civil liberties project, and donations would qualify you for a charitable tax receipt.

Remove Ads
Remove Ads

  • By Ezra Levant

Fight Vaccine Passports

A new civil liberties project — fighting against forced vaccines!

Learn More

Don't Get Censored

Big Tech is censoring us. Sign up so we can always stay in touch.

Remove Ads