Gov’t could make vaccination of workers compulsory – QC


Based on the law, and Constitution, a court may likely be on the side of the state or private employer that makes vaccination of workers compulsory, once they have acted in a reasonably justifiable manner.

That is the conclusion of a regional Queens’s Counsel.

“…You look at the Constitution of St Vincent and the Grenadines, in particular the Bill of Rights, and you see numerous instances where the Bill of Rights is limiting a protected right in the interest of public health,” indicated Dr Francis Alexis, a Grenadian who also holds a PhD in Public Law and is a former Attorney General of Grenada.

He was speaking on the “Let’s get down to business” program for May 9, aired as a collaboration between IKTV and the Chamber of Industry and Commerce.

While the veteran lawyer’s stance remains that the state uses moral suasion and mounts a public education program on the matter; he gave his analysis on the legal grounds of making vaccination compulsory in St Vincent and the Grenadines(SVG).

Alexis pointed out that the right to not be arbitrarily searched in your body or property, the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, movement, and protection from discrimination are some of the rights, noting an exception in terms of actions that are done in the interest of public health.

“The right to personal liberty specifically says in section three, subsection one, paragraph G, that that right is subject to the state taking measures to prevent the spread of infectious diseases,” the QC also noted, “and you will find other provisions concerned about hygiene, and property being the source of injuriousness to public health.”

Alexis stressed the provision against discrimination, because “…that section goes out of its way to make the point that there is no prohibited discrimination in setting standards or qualifications for holding an office or employment.”

Examining the section, “It is saying that the state may set standards or qualifications required of any person who is appointed to, or to act in any office or employment.”

The host, Executive Director of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce, Anthony Regisford, intervened here to ask whether this would include taking a Covid-19 vaccine if the state deemed it necessary.

“I would answer that question in the affirmative,” the Queen’s Counsel responded.

From the various provisions in the constitution which he mentioned, Alexis stated “…I think we can pick this: 1) all the exceptions to the provisions I’ve referred to, all of them pivot on the concept of what is reasonable.”

“…The question then arises: would it be reasonable for the state to prescribe mandatory vaccination?”

“We can answer that question with full confidence in relation to public workers, given section 13(5) (on anti-discrimination),” he opined.

He explained it would be reasonable in the sense that the employee is a direct contact person with persons served. A list of employees considered to be direct contact would have to be settled in a process involving employers, workers, Unions, medical doctors, Alexis noted.

He also addressed whether it would be possible if the private sector wanted to take the initiative, to set the standard with compulsory vaccination.

“…For one thing they would not be violating the constitution, because generally speaking the constitution is a compact between the state and the individual, meaning if the state is not involved, a violation of the constitution, generally speaking, would not arise,” and employers wouldn’t be subjected to a constitutional suit.

“Secondly, in any event, once what the private employer does is reasonable in the context of the Bill of Rights, and in this specific context of protecting the interest of public health, whether as the subject of a constitutional suit, or a private law suit, I would think the private employer can show that the private employer acted, one in good faith, two in accordance with positions of say- the World Health Organisation(WHO), Pan American Health Organisation(PAHO), the Medical Association,” Alexis noted.

Therefore, from where he sits, he reasoned that the private employer would be protected in law.

He reiterated that the legal test would be “what is reasonable enough in all the circumstances, so whether it’s private sector or the state – allowances have to be made for genuine exemptions. Somebody who has a medical history of getting unwell if subjected to vaccinations of whatever kind, allowances have to be made for those situations.”

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]


  1. If an employer mandates the experimental ‘vaccine’ (gene therapy) as a condition to having a job, then that employer becomes PERSONALLY LIABLE for any injury that may occur to that employee due to the administering of that ‘vaccine’.

    Under the Nuremberg Code, they could also face the death penalty.

    • I totally agree with you. They should compensate the family with monthly payments until that person died. If they died immediately after taking the vaccines, the employer should compensate that person family for at least ten (10) years with monthly payments.

    • Well said!

      Additionally, just a few months ago it was reported that over 4000 persons had died as a direct result of this experimental substance, yet they are marching along after it has been proven that the virus will continue to spread and mutate even further, rendering even more useless their experimental jabs.

      Organized chaos at it’s best.

    • Astrazeneca covid 19 vaccine is not gene therapy technology….. so stop trying to confuse the Antiguan public…
      Who you working for ?

      • COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy

        mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters, as you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for
        mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies
        The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community
        Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices
        SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked
        As calls for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination grow around the world, it’s becoming ever more crucial to understand what these injections actually are. The mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are in fact gene therapies.

        Interestingly enough, mainstream media, fact checkers and various industry front groups insist the gene therapy claim is bogus, even though every single detail about the vaccines shouts otherwise. Why are they spreading this disinformation? Why do they not want you to know what these injections actually are?

        mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Fulfill None of the Criteria for a Vaccine
        To start, let’s take a look at some basic definitions of words. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is:1

        “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
        Immunity, in turn, is defined as:

        “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
        That’s the medical definition. The legal definition, in the few cases where it has been detailed, is equally unequivocal:

        Iowa code2 — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.”
        Washington state code3,4 — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” The statute also specifies that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”
        These definitions, both medical and legal, present problems for mRNA “vaccines,” since: mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
        They do not inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.

        Dictionaries Attempt to Rewrite Medical Terms
        We should not be fooled by attempts to condition the public to accept redefined terms. As of February 2019, Merriam-Webster defined5 “vaccine” as “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” Let’s be clear. Merriam-Webster does not dictate medical terminology. It can be used, however, to confuse people. For now, all medical dictionaries still show the traditional definition of vaccine,7 as Merriam-Webster did up until this year. That said, I would not be surprised if changes are made there as well, eventually, if the misrepresentation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is allowed to stand.

        There’s also the issue of whether a gene therapy can be mandated, and this may hinge on it being accepted as a vaccine. The 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts8 essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit.

        Since mRNA therapies do not render the immunized person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk, and therefore cannot be mandated.

        Put another way, the ruling argues (although legal experts diverge on some of the finer details of its interpretation) that it’s acceptable for some individuals to be harmed by a public health directive as long as it benefits the collective. However, if vaccination is a public health measure meant to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to accomplish two things:

        Ensure that the vaccinated person is rendered immune from the disease.
        Inhibit transmission of the disease from the vaccinated person to other individuals. We’re now back to the original problem that mRNA therapies for COVID-19 do not accomplish either of these things. Since these gene therapies do not render the person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk.

        On the contrary, the only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the individual receiving the gene therapy, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein.

        In other words, they won’t keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they are only supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected. So, getting vaccinated protects no one but yourself. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit (less severe COVID-19 symptoms upon infection), the justification to accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community is blatantly irrational.

    • Absolutely not……you contradicted yourself by your own comments…

      If taking the vaccine is a prerequisite to accepting the job offer and you are against the vaccine, then do not accept the job offer and walk away.

      I really do not agree with you, but hey…we are both entitled to our own opinions..

      Stay safe

      • The article was talking about existing government workers, not new hires.
        If they say you MUST take the jab to remain in your job, then they become liable foe any injury. Personally, I’d quit before I’d get the jab!

  2. What about the people who have certain medical 🏥 issues that they were told not to take the vaccine? What would happen to those people? It is not all vaccines good for everyone. They should be pushing to have people especially those who haven’t been for a medical check in years to do so before taking any vaccines. Let the medical advice them if they should or should not be vaccinated. Don’t tell people to be vaccinated and most of them don’t even know their medical status.

  3. They will have a riot on their hands if they try to enforce this vaccine bullshit.

    World dictator traitor tyrant liar Gaston Browne and his scum cabinet must go.

  4. That law is from the colonial days and must be removed from the books.

    We are no ones property anymore and no one can make us take a foreign substance in our bodies. If we allow that, we go back to the slavery days where they can do whatever they want with us and our bodies.


    No one will ever tell me what I can and can’t do with my own person. I was born free and will die free.

  5. Thumbs up Antiguan Citizen!!👍 Absolutely NO BODY is going to dictate for me what I can and cannot take in my own body. The think that bex me, the vac can’t prevent you from contracting or spreading the virus. Now the side effects seem to be a big ‘over up.

  6. Antigua people do not let your government make this mandotory at all. We Caribbean people are being put to the slaughter house. Stand tall and say no ….. we should not be allowing our governments to do this to us. Say no if u don’t want it and u should always have a choice. The day we lose the right to say no we have lost everything….. stand up.

  7. PLEASE you Nayseyers don’t get sick and go the doctor for any medication.. Why do people take Vaccines for years? Stop with your foolishness. Vaccines have proven to save lives for donkey years.

    • This stuff isn’t like other vaccines of the past.
      mRNA ‘vaccines’ have NEVER been used before..
      DON’T TAKE IT!

  8. Being employed is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT so at the end of the day if your employers say you have to be vaccinated then walk away and find an employer who will employ people who are not vaccinated.
    Some ah you mekking it sound like people bound fuh gee ah you work if dem say ah you need fuh be vaccinated!!!

  9. Yes, the Government could make Vaccines compulsory, but these mRNA vaccines do not meet the definition of what a vaccine is. They are experimental Gene Therapy injections, and the Government forcing you to take them is State Sponsored Terrorism. It will also be a violation of the Nuremberg Code, and International Conventions on Human Rights. The Government forcing you to take these experimental mRNA injections can legally be viewed as an act of violence and assault, and is it not your right to defend yourself against such despicable acts of violence and assault?

Comments are closed.