All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

[dapaterson]

Fortunately our system doesn’t peg your access to healthcare to the quality of your employer provided benefits.

Unless you need medication or have teeth...

 

[lenaitch]

Here's the problem, there's no discussion, no questions. Just a varied levels of government adherence and dogma on one hand and everything from those that take the jab but only did it to stay employed, stay housed, fed and warm. All the way down to those that would invoke Waco. How the hell did we get to spineless politicians who don't, want to make a decision. Instead they give the running of the country's economy, industry, the social safety net over to a bunch of unelected medical czars?

No discussion or questions? You truly can't be serious. Politicians have made decisions, lots of them, you just apparently don't like the decisions they made. Legislators, not doctors or other SMEs get to enact regulations and orders within legislation.

Do you need to show your driver's licence to by groceries? This is nothing but a strawman excuse.

Although there has been much discussion in the intervening pages, I was merely making the point that it is not without precedent that governments put rules and conditions on public interaction in the interests of health, safety, integrity, etc. This temporary, like a highway closed for bad weather; if you believe otherwise, sorry, I can't help you.

 

[kev994]

Mea culpa, mea culpa . . .

My apologizes to whomever wrote the Dec 3 CBC article for stating they were incorrect. By prematurely congratulating myself for finding an inconsistency in what the story said and what the provincial government site said, I failed to complete the research. If I had looked just a little harder I would have found, also on the NB gov't site, this dated 17 Dec.

Interim measures take effect tonight to slow the spread of Omicron variant

Interim measures go into effect across the province at 11:59 p.m. to slow the spread of Omicron and other variants of the COVID-19 virus.

www2.gnb.ca

NB basically changes their rules drastically every day. My parents live there and they can’t keep up with what the rules of the day are. So I’ll forgive you.

 

[brihard]

NB basically changes their rules drastically every day. My parents live there and they can’t keep up with what the rules of the day are. So I’ll forgive you.

NB and NS have been quick through the pandemic to institute new restrictions as situations have changed. Both provinces have begun to get hit with very fast increases in the past few days. I won’t be surprised if we see them act fast again.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No discussion or questions? You truly can't be serious. Politicians have made decisions, lots of them, you just apparently don't like the decisions they made. Legislators, not doctors or other SMEs get to enact regulations and orders within legislation.

Although there has been much discussion in the intervening pages, I was merely making the point that it is not without precedent that governments put rules and conditions on public interaction in the interests of health, safety, integrity, etc. This temporary, like a highway closed for bad weather; if you believe otherwise, sorry, I can't help you.

Hold that thought.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Mea culpa, mea culpa . . .

My apologizes to whomever wrote the Dec 3 CBC article for stating they were incorrect. By prematurely congratulating myself for finding an inconsistency in what the story said and what the provincial government site said, I failed to complete the research. If I had looked just a little harder I would have found, also on the NB gov't site, this dated 17 Dec.

Interim measures take effect tonight to slow the spread of Omicron variant

Interim measures go into effect across the province at 11:59 p.m. to slow the spread of Omicron and other variants of the COVID-19 virus.

www2.gnb.ca

Tanks! You are a small portion of the 1% of the population that actually look three steps beyond the first article you find that fits your narrative. I wrongly assumed the CBC was beyond reproach. Something must've shorted in my brain.

So bottom line, everyone was right...depending on the date..
No shame, no foul.

I still contend that anyone that thought this was a good idea was an idiot and should be considered a threat.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

NB basically changes their rules drastically every day. My parents live there and they can’t keep up with what the rules of the day are. So I’ll forgive you.

Sorry, missed this while I was replying to Blackadder.
Please include yourself above. Personal insight from primary contact, is much better than the media. Too simplistic an analysis, but hey, I'm not changing anybody"s mind one way or the other.

In reality, I'm super bored and need to keep my brain active. This place is like a trickle charger. Just enough stimulus to keep the battery charged.

 

[QV]

You're a CAF member right? Then the answer is "whatever ones you are told," including lead bullets fed to you by a machine gun. It's called unlimited liability, if you didn't get the brief if basic training, consider yourself lucky that you've been collecting a pay cheque for all these years without having to reconcile why.

No, I'm thankfully retired. I completed a few decades of unlimited liability. I am now allowed to question everything and you should be thankful that some of us do so for those who can't.

 

[Blackadder1916]

While a decision has not yet been posted on the Federal Court of Canada site, I did notice that this entry was made in the "Recorded Entry Summary Information" for the case that was (initially) the topic of this thread.

Reasons Order and Reasons dated 17-DEC-2021 rendered by The Honourable Madam Justice Fuhrer Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 5 Result: dismissed "THIS COURT ORDERS that 1. The Applicants' motions are dismissed. 2. No costs are awarded." Filed on 17-DEC-2021 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. Interlocutory Decision Copy of Reasons for Order and Reasons entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1520 page(s) 282 - 314

There is no direct link to the summary pages, you have to search for the cases and then click for "more" information. The two cases that were heard jointly were court numbers T-1813-21 and T-1870-21.

A screen grab of part of the info sheet

 

[dimsum]

While a decision has not yet been posted on the Federal Court of Canada site, I did notice that this entry was made in the "Recorded Entry Summary Information" for the case that was (initially) the topic of this thread.



There is no direct link to the summary pages, you have to search for the cases and then click for "more" information. The two cases that were heard jointly were court numbers T-1813-21 and T-1870-21.

A screen grab of part of the info sheet

View attachment 67745

So...unsuccessful then?

 

[Blackadder1916]

So...unsuccessful then?

Maybe . . . maybe not.

Without seeing copies of the documents and relying only on the truncated notations from the summary pages, Furher's (great name for someone whose word is law) decision may only apply to the specific motions mentioned;

specifically, for case T-1813-21

Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant returnable (but no hearing date indicated at this time) for an Order for an injunction order preventing the vaccine mandate filed on 07-DEC-2021

and
for case T-1870-21

Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in writing to be placed before the Court in Ottawa for temporary prohibitive injunction preventing any member of the Canadian Armed Forces acting in its capacity on behalf of the Respondent from enforcing any directive regarding a vaccine mandate from the Chief of Defense staff, General W. Eyre (CDS) pending the outcome of the Applicants' potential judicial review. (see e-copy...) filed on 13-DEC-2021

The justice's decision may not have extended to a "Judicial Review" of the mandate itself, though I get the sense that the " No costs are awarded" would indicate finality.

 

[ModlrMike]

If I read things correctly, Motion 4 (case T-1870-21) was:

Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in writing to be placed before the Court in Ottawa for temporary prohibitive injunction preventing any member of the Canadian Armed Forces acting in its capacity on behalf of the Respondent from enforcing any directive regarding a vaccine mandate from the Chief of Defense staff, General W. Eyre (CDS) pending the outcome of the Applicants' potential judicial review. (see e-copy...) filed on 13-DEC-2021

This looks like the decision didn't go their way:

Reasons Order and Reasons dated 17-DEC-2021 rendered by The Honourable Madam Justice Fuhrer Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 4 Result: dismissed "THIS COURT ORDERS that 1. The Applicants' motions are dismissed. 2. No costs are awarded." Filed on 17-DEC-2021 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. Interlocutory Decision Copy of Reasons for Order and Reasons entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1520 page(s) 348 - 380

 

[ballz]

No, I'm thankfully retired. I completed a few decades of unlimited liability. I am now allowed to question everything and you should be thankful that some of us do so for those who can't.

This thread is about the military members in this situation, not civilians in a free market. Explain how you can reconcile the idea of unlimited liability with some weird exception about this specific vaccine, or any vaccine/medication for that matter. It's nonsensical. Sorry but no on the "thank-you's," those telling soldiers that they should for some reason be exempt from unlimited liability in this specific instance only serve to further harm the CAF.

Funny enough, all the people that are bitching and whining on here are the same ones that are more than happy to advocate that a business owner should be able to employ whomever they want and provide services to whomever they want, and exercise their freedom of association, and that that will provide the remedy to things like discrimination. Now that they're the person people want to avoid, it's suddenly a travesty, a real human rights issue.

It's fine to not want a vaccine, that's your choice. But those trying to do mental gymnastics as to how you're being wronged because people no longer want to do business with you, including employer/employee relationships, is only hurting yourself further.

 

[Remius]

If I read things correctly, Motion 4 (case T-1870-21) was:



This looks like the decision didn't go their way:

I didn’t think it would,

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Oh please.......Austin Matthews hurts his knee tonight he has an MRI in hours.....I get mine in 8 months. Let me guess, this is news to you?

You be surprised at how many people who champion public healthcare because it is "equal" neglect to remember these inconsistencies

 

[lenaitch]

You be surprised at how many people who champion public healthcare because it is "equal" neglect to remember these inconsistencies

He's an American citizen. How the whole work visa thing work between the two countries is something I have no clue about, but given that they work and constantly travel between numerous jurisdictions, I'm not surprised they have access to private clinics.

 

[QV]

This thread is about the military members in this situation, not civilians in a free market. Explain how you can reconcile the idea of unlimited liability with some weird exception about this specific vaccine, or any vaccine/medication for that matter. It's nonsensical. Sorry but no on the "thank-you's," those telling soldiers that they should for some reason be exempt from unlimited liability in this specific instance only serve to further harm the CAF.

Funny enough, all the people that are bitching and whining on here are the same ones that are more than happy to advocate that a business owner should be able to employ whomever they want and provide services to whomever they want, and exercise their freedom of association, and that that will provide the remedy to things like discrimination. Now that they're the person people want to avoid, it's suddenly a travesty, a real human rights issue.

It's fine to not want a vaccine, that's your choice. But those trying to do mental gymnastics as to how you're being wronged because people no longer want to do business with you, including employer/employee relationships, is only hurting yourself further.

Oh ffs. Get off your high horse.

Unlimited liability better be for reasons that are right and moral. Not management’s whim. Whether it’s right or moral to mandate vaccines for Covid19 is still up for debate and will be until long term safety data shows it outweighs risk in people who are already not at risk for Covid19. As an aside, management hasn‘t had a great track record lately.

 

[Pelorus]

i am now allowed to question everything and you should be thankful that some of us do so for those who can't.

Oh ffs. Get off your high horse.

The lack of self awareness between these two statements made in the same thread on the same day is truly incredible.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The lack of self awareness between these two statements made in the same thread on the same day is truly incredible.

 

[ballz]

Unlimited liability better be for reasons that are right and moral.

That's up to the Queen and those given the authorities under the NDA to issue legal orders. It's a volunteer army... if you lose confidence in the leadership's decision-making (as I have), then you can leave (which I have) so you no longer have to suffer from poor leadership / no longer assume the risk of serving under poor leadership.

For a soldier to argue they should be exempt from unlimited liability because you don't like the orders coming down the pipe is fucking shameless. Unlimited liability doesn't exist to ensure people follow the orders that they happen to like.

Whether it’s right or moral to mandate vaccines for Covid19 is still up for debate and will be until....

Whether it's right or moral to make any decision that has to balance risk with accomplishing a mission can always be debated and the "truth" will never be known until you can look back at it in hindsight.

Like taking any objective, no one has a crystal ball so that they can use the benefit of hindsight. Commanders have to make the best decision they can with the information they have. This is absolutely no different than having to make a decision to order someone into harm's way to take an objective. In this case the best info we have is that administering vaccines provide negligible risk but provide a huge boost to force protection... it's an easy decision.

If this causes someone to lose confidence in the leadership, they should do the honorable thing and leave.