Like Tree25Likes

Should your jab exception be invalidated if obtained from one of the accused?

Reply
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,629
    https://twitter.com/alvinllum/status/1583380693018890240

    Laudable if useless decision based on law, not what public opinion or what the government might want. Sad that it’s a fringe issue and contentious with the section of the public believing lack of vaccination is the problem, but showcases the best of old Hong Kong.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,629

    https://geoexpat.com/forum/newpostinthread?t=364572.html

    Government lawyers had argued that it was necessary to nullify "questionable" certificates to reduce infection risks
    Compare and contrast. Observers might say what is questionable is the consistency of the logic. To date have not seen a quantification of the costs and benefits of various measures such as the various components of social distancing, vaccine passes, and masking, let alone a comparison between them.

    But my unreserved congratulations to attendees who wish to eat nonetheless.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Posts
    502

    Didn't understand whaat the govt lawyers were trying to say...

    I think this invalidation procedure topic is really still a covid topic. The whole vaccine argument is really still a covid topic because I can't tell if ppl really felt the same way abt vaccines before covid. Most ppl got "involuntarily" vaccinated with the big ones during baby times as part of national programs, polio tb the usual.

    I do think the invalidation itself is a joke bcos everyone has completely forgotten the real correct procedure after being forced into this covid snafu for so long. Eg if you are a principal who suspects a particular clinic is issuing MCs to students for extended periods w/o legit medical concerns - you don't call the police. You lodge a complaint to the medical council because even another doctor can't just invalidate some other doctor's medical opinion. Medical board was the right protocol to follow if you wanted authorities to get involved. Nobody in their right mind actually calls the police for this..nobody except for a particular stereotype of parents v common in Asia.

    Our parents were the call the police generation and we are abit of that + let's complain to (somebody) generation. Wasn't calling the police a common threat to keep kids in line when we were young? It was an empty threat back then bcos police would just lol if you called but now....


  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    96

    -Leavehomesafe needs to go
    -Vaccine Pass needs to go
    -CTNs needs to go
    -CIFs needs to go
    -Half day school needs to go
    -Daily rat tests for students+teachers need to go
    -7 Day rat tests after arrival into HK needs to go
    -Vaccine requirements for tourists to enter HK needs to go
    -Zero covid policy needs to go


  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,629
    https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/co...jsp?DIS=148141


    1. A Government minister gets his or her legal powers from legislation – and not from an announcement made in a press release.
    88. From this approach, it can be seen that Mr Chan approached the analysis by looking first at the ‘big picture’ as might be shown by looking only at sections 3 and 4 of Cap 599L, before looking at all at the actual operative provisions relating to why a MEC has a purpose, and how it is obtained and constituted. With respect, I do not think that is the correct approach to the assessment of context, precisely because it risks looking to see what might be desirable. Rather, it is necessary to look at the whole structure of the various provisions and to view them in that full context.
    89. Indeed, much of Mr Chan’s ‘first line’ of oral submissions seemed to me to be identifying what was thought to be, and why it might be thought reasonably to be, desirable:
    (1) Early in his oral submissions, having set out the factual background, Mr Chan suggested the relevant question would be what was the appropriate response from the Secretary to those facts. In my view, that is not the relevant question for present purposes. The relevant question is whether what is thought to be the appropriate response can be taken within the powers granted to the Secretary.
    (2) A little later in his oral submissions, Mr Chan suggested that where the Secretary exercised his broad judgment as to how to contain the risk which appeared to have arisen, the range of the safety margin was a matter to be determined by the Secretary, and against that the question to ask on a narrow question of vires (powers) is why the Secretary should not be able to do what he has decided. In my view, that is also not the relevant question for present purposes. The relevant question is not “why not?”, but “why does he have power to do so, and where is that power?”.
    (3) Similarly, another question posed by Mr Chan – namely, whether it is the intention of the legislature to leave the Secretary without power to do what he thinks is necessary for meeting the risk – is not the right question. The relevant question is simply whether the legislature has given the power to do what he thinks is necessary.
    90. That right question cannot properly be asked by seeking to draw attention away from the actual words of the relevant sections dealing with MECs.
    91. This must be so because, however the point is dressed up, the Secretary proposes to treat or deem as invalid (or unacceptable) some MECs which presently otherwise remain valid (or acceptable).
    93. It seems to me to be absolutely clear from the provisions in section 5(2) and section 17 that the legislation gives to registered medical practitioners the task of considering whether a person is clinically assessed to be unsuitable for being vaccinated, and if so for how long. As I have already indicated, tasking a registered medical practitioner with providing and certifying that opinion – or deciding not give such a certificate – makes obvious and practical sense. Indeed, it might be thought that it does not make practical sense to task forming and certifying the relevant medical opinion to anyone else, including even medically qualified ministers or civil servants acting in those roles.
    The difference between a sound legal judgment and even well-meaning opinions.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Posts
    502

    Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Had a wager going on when this would happen and I said right away.. free dinner today..

    https://hongkongfp.com/2022/10/25/br...ng-court-case/

    shri, East_coast and vmlinuz like this.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,629
    https://twitter.com/alvinllum/status/1585192352024776704

    What the government wants, the government gets. I don’t really have an issue with the particular decision, but it does show why anyone assuming rule of law with Chinese characteristics protects anybody not involved in politics is fundamentally living an illusion, particularly with the neutering of public opinion as a feedback mechanism.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    1,627

    What if you had got the exemption legitimately?


  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    96

    The HK government was giving 6 month jab exemptions to unvaccinated mainland tourists no questions asked for over six months earlier this year, how come no one went to jail over that?

    natino likes this.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,682
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrynField:
    What if you had got the exemption legitimately?
    If the government suspect it to be invalid it is invalid.

Reply
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast