• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

Misses muffett

New Member
Reaction score
5
Points
130
Who is talking about people being assaulted? I’ve seen nobody advocating for forcible, physically coerced vaccination. Careful there.
It is an assault to inject someone without consent, if the consent is coerced via threatening your job then...
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,383
Points
1,110
It is an assault to inject someone without consent, if the consent is coerced via threatening your job then...
Yeah, no. That is not assault. No nurse is putting a needle in your arm without you allowing it. If you don’t like that continued military service means being innoculated against a bunch of stuff, and that one more thing has been added to that list, you are free to make that choice not to get the vaccine. If you decide that, in the balance, getting the vaccine is worth your job security, then it’s not assault when you receive it. You’ll find “assault” defined in section 265 of the Criminal Code if you’re continuing to struggle with this.
 

Misses muffett

New Member
Reaction score
5
Points
130
Yeah, no. That is not assault. No nurse is putting a needle in your arm without you allowing it. If you don’t like that continued military service means being innoculated against a bunch of stuff, and that one more thing has been added to that list, you are free to make that choice not to get the vaccine. If you decide that, in the balance, getting the vaccine is worth your job security, then it’s not assault when you receive it. You’ll find “assault” defined in section 265 of the Criminal Code if you’re continuing to struggle with this.
Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent. In cases of sexual assault someone who is a subordinate cannot consent. Assault is assault regardless of the subtype. Furthermore, and most importantly an assault includes the use of indirect force, so being at arms length does not mean you are not culpable.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,042
Points
1,040
Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent. In cases of sexual assault someone who is a subordinate cannot consent. Assault is assault regardless of the subtype. Furthermore, and most importantly an assault includes the use of indirect force, so being at arms length does not mean you are not culpable.

"Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent". Yes it does, and it's gone on since the day you were born; first by your parents and then by your society. Following rules is a component of living in a civil society. You are drawing a false equivalency between imposing rules and any reasonable definition of 'assault'. Is an employer's requirement to show up to work on time five days a week as a condition of getting a paycheque, or a rule that requires you to drive on a particular side of the road, an 'assault' simply because you have decided you'd rather not?

Is this new rule of social engagement reasonable? I'm not aware that it has been tested by any level of competent authority (that apparently nasty word again) yet, but all professional and general legal opinions I have seen say it is. Did the rules change mid-stream? Yes they did. So did the requirement to wear seat belts. It's called social evolution.

If it your view that you should have absolute personal sovereignty yet still fully and equally function within society, then I suppose there is not much others can say to you. Nobody is proposing to assault you - indirectly or otherwise. You have the absolute freedom to choose (consent) - and live with that choice.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,383
Points
1,110
Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent. In cases of sexual assault someone who is a subordinate cannot consent. Assault is assault regardless of the subtype. Furthermore, and most importantly an assault includes the use of indirect force, so being at arms length does not mean you are not culpable.

No, you have the full ability to consent to the vaccine or not. There will simply be employment consequences if you don’t. You’re free to seek other work elsewhere. Consent does not need to be consequence-free to count. Nobody is going to physically restrain you and force you to take a vaccine, just like how, as a reservist, nobody forced you to attend class A training. There were simply administrative consequences to your employment if you don’t show up.

Anyway, as I said: this is not ‘assault’. Not even close. What it is is a decision (apparently difficult for some) borne of once in a century necessity in the form of a global public health crisis. But the choice remains yours.
 
Last edited:

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
NDA Sect 126 should help some people make the decision.

Refusing immunization, tests, blood examination or treatment

126 Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, re-vaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, wilfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,258
Points
1,060
Community orders can force someone to get injections/medication or lose their freedom (jail/committed) if I'm not mistaken.

Maybe people who refuse the vaccine will get hit with some kind of community order in the future.

At the very least someone who isn't vaccinated without medical support will have a very hard time doing anything outside of their house.


We're seeing issues with businesses not accepting CAF member's vaccine books as proof of vaccination since its federal and not the provincial certification. The CAF told members not to worry, our needle books would be good enough. Guess the CAF forgot to tell everyone else.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,368
Points
1,160
NDA Sect 126 should help some people make the decision.

Refusing immunization, tests, blood examination or treatment

126 Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, re-vaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, wilfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.

Walkie Talkie Copy GIF by Apex Communications Network
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,383
Points
1,110
NDA Sect 126 should help some people make the decision.

Refusing immunization, tests, blood examination or treatment

126 Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, re-vaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, wilfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
Have any CAF members actually been ordered by their chains of command to get vaccinated, or have they simply been ordered to attest to their status regarding the voluntary decision to get vaccinated? Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that across the entire federal landscape this will be an administrative matter, not a disciplinary one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJP

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,862
Points
1,010
Have any CAF members actually been ordered by their chains of command to get vaccinated, or have they simply been ordered to attest to their status regarding the voluntary decision to get vaccinated? Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that across the entire federal landscape this will be an administrative matter, not a disciplinary one.
So far, nothing other than a warning order, at least at my unit.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,383
Points
1,110
So far, nothing other than a warning order, at least at my unit.
What's it warning of? An impending order to get vaccinated, or simply the attestation system? The only was S.126 applies would be if the chain of command orders members specifically to get vaccinated. I suspect that CAF is very specifically avoiding invocation of S.126.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,862
Points
1,010
What's it warning of? An impending order to get vaccinated, or simply the attestation system? The only was S.126 applies would be if the chain of command orders members specifically to get vaccinated. I suspect that CAF is very specifically avoiding invocation of S.126.
Oh, sorry- an attestation in MM.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,823
Points
1,110
This may have been posted already but here goes:


Basically Kipling was found not guilty but it was appealed and he could have been prosecuted again. The CAF dropped the charges.

It hinges, IMO (I am not a lawyer FYI ) on whether the vaccine is safe. CAF members could be ordered to take the vaxx if it is found safe.

My apologies if this has been posted.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,383
Points
1,110
This may have been posted already but here goes:


Basically Kipling was found not guilty but it was appealed and he could have been prosecuted again. The CAF dropped the charges.

It hinges, IMO (I am not a lawyer FYI ) on whether the vaccine is safe. CAF members could be ordered to take the vaxx if it is found safe.

My apologies if this has been posted.

Yeah, CAF didn't want to push the issue and see it through. There's no particularly useful precedent out of that one.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,365
Points
1,040
Have any CAF members actually been ordered by their chains of command to get vaccinated, or have they simply been ordered to attest to their status regarding the voluntary decision to get vaccinated? Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that across the entire federal landscape this will be an administrative matter, not a disciplinary one.
We were told to standby and wait for direction, but the attestation is just a tracking issue because of the PRO B (medical) nature of the med docs. So the order will probably be to get a vaccine, with the local tracking done via attestations to get it done quickly, and probably some kind of follow up from the medical folks in slow time for people that aren't vaccinated in their docs.

So lying on that would probably be an additional charge, if they do come down with a vaccination order. Either way, sounds like a quick route to an AR and release. Alternately, folks can choose not to get vaccinated and then go the same release route for not meeting H&S related conditions of employment.

It's a pretty reasonable order though; people are focusing a lot on the death rate and ignoring the long term affects. I got sick in May 2020, and while I never was hospitalized or anything, still having some lingering issues that would make me non-deployable (and probably couldn't pass the FORCE test right now). That's at about 25% of COVID cases have something like that, so even if we were at 100% remar, that could wipe out entire units worth of troops, and severely impact operations. Given that the vaccines have all passed all kinds of studies and they have pretty good OQE on it's safety, it's pretty easy to make the argument that being vaccinated is critical to the CAF to be able to remain effective. Don't know anyone who is being vocal about not getting vaccinated, and from talking to friends, have only heard of one person raising it as an issue, which probably roughly covers hundreds of people when you look at 2nd and 3rd degrees of separation, so think the numbers lost to anti-vaxxers is much lower than potential losses from people rendered non-employable from COVID.
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
182
Points
580
I was wondering and I'm not a lawyer. If you were unvaccinated because you refused to do so, you were an asymptomatic carrier (like Typhoid Mary) and you inflected someone and who died because of you, can you be charged under civil law?
 

hattrick72

Member
Reaction score
47
Points
380
I was wondering and I'm not a lawyer. If you were unvaccinated because you refused to do so, you were an asymptomatic carrier (like Typhoid Mary) and you inflected someone and who died because of you, can you be charged under civil law?
Really hard to prove without any doubt that carrier A have it to them and not carrier (B-Z) that could've had it and were never tested.

Right now, if you are vaccinated and don't show symptoms, you don't get tested. If the vaccine works, there will be a lot of carriers without symptoms. Too hard to prove in my opinion.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,383
Points
1,110
I was wondering and I'm not a lawyer. If you were unvaccinated because you refused to do so, you were an asymptomatic carrier (like Typhoid Mary) and you inflected someone and who died because of you, can you be charged under civil law?
Charged with an offense? No. There would be no intent if you don’t know you’re infected. If, conceivably, you DID know and sought to deliberately infect others, then yes, definitely. There’s precedent for that with HIV.
 
Top