• 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]

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
599
Points
840
I'm actually talking "principle" in that there comes a time when society's safety and rights in general trumps an individual's fanciful ideas that a minor imposition is a legally protected, sanctified right. I fully believe that this is the role of the judiciary. To test opposing concepts and rule on them rather than leave them to continue to divide society.

Notwithstanding old legal tropes, all legal decisions are, and should be, based on legal principles and hard evidence and not by personal beliefs and evidence garnered from an influencer's Facebook page.

😉

Actually I would argue that isn't the case. Individual rights need to be upheld to the utmost extremes, as anything else leads to dictatorships, massacre's, and repression. The Residential Schools were in 'societies best interest' when they created them and look how that turned out. I used to be for the whole 'public good' until I realized how so many people abuse it for their own interests. China argues the genocide of the Uighurs is in the good of their society. Frances committee on public safety executed tens of thousands.

You are talking about more than a minor imposition, you are advocating for individuals to be assaulted and a foreign substance injected into them without their consent. You may believe it is in everyone's best interest, and realistically it likely is (I am not anti-vax, I have had one of my two shots with the second booked), but that doesn't mean you have the right to impose it upon others due to your fears. The scariest part about this is as a society with all the information provided and a significant uptake on the vaccine (at least 85%) we still feel the need to forcibly provide it to people who have determined that they would rather not have it and accept the risks involved in the activity.

It is even enshrined in the Charter and the 1867 Constitution of this country. Right to life, liberty, and security of the person and not to be deprived of such unless in the interest of fundamental justice. It is their body and therefore should be their choice. These were also provisions written by people who lived in and through the pre-1950s medicine society where people actually died from many diseases. Not only that it was written by people who had Private Health Care and the the expectation that they take care of themselves.

A societies rights are most protected when a individuals rights are protected.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
7,157
Points
1,110
Actually I would argue that isn't the case. Individual rights need to be upheld to the utmost extremes, as anything else leads to dictatorships, massacre's, and repression. The Residential Schools were in 'societies best interest' when they created them and look how that turned out. I used to be for the whole 'public good' until I realized how so many people abuse it for their own interests. China argues the genocide of the Uighurs is in the good of their society. Frances committee on public safety executed tens of thousands.

You are talking about more than a minor imposition, you are advocating for individuals to be assaulted and a foreign substance injected into them without their consent. You may believe it is in everyone's best interest, and realistically it likely is (I am not anti-vax, I have had one of my two shots with the second booked), but that doesn't mean you have the right to impose it upon others due to your fears. The scariest part about this is as a society with all the information provided and a significant uptake on the vaccine (at least 85%) we still feel the need to forcibly provide it to people who have determined that they would rather not have it and accept the risks involved in the activity.

It is even enshrined in the Charter and the 1867 Constitution of this country. Right to life, liberty, and security of the person and not to be deprived of such unless in the interest of fundamental justice. It is their body and therefore should be their choice. These were also provisions written by people who lived in and through the pre-1950s medicine society where people actually died from many diseases. Not only that it was written by people who had Private Health Care and the the expectation that they take care of themselves.

A societies rights are most protected when a individuals rights are protected.

Who is talking about people being assaulted? I’ve seen nobody advocating for forcible, physically coerced vaccination. Careful there.
 

Kilted

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
616
Points
990
It is even enshrined in the Charter and the 1867 Constitution of this country. Right to life, liberty, and security of the person and not to be deprived of such unless in the interest of fundamental justice. It is their body and therefore should be their choice.

Nothing that the notwithstanding clause can't overcome.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
10,392
Points
1,360
Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) and Vaccines | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia


There is no short term evidence of ADE, but if it happens longer term... the consequences are beyond horrifying.

The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness - Salk Institute for Biological Studies

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

Just having the protein spikes in your system may damage you. Am I sure I want to take a vaccine that causes my body to produce these proteins?
Have you had a common cold? Did you get over it?

If it came from a Rhinovirus C variant, your body is already rife with spike protein antibodies.

Hopefully your body wasn’t too damaged by them.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,292
Points
1,160
if I do happen to have an adverse effect and can't work anymore. I have 7 kids to feed and support. If I have a bad reaction and am f*k'd, so is my family if I can't sue anyone to compensate.
I'd imagine you have quite the life insurance policy in place for the dangers that come with deploying overseas?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,698
Points
1,060
Oh man, I just don't know. I'm burnt out from all this.

Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID‐19 vaccines worsening clinical disease

Specifically the parts about consent and "THE RISK OF ADE IN COVID‐19 VACCINES IS NON‐THEORETICAL AND COMPELLING"

Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) and Vaccines | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia


There is no short term evidence of ADE, but if it happens longer term... the consequences are beyond horrifying.

The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness - Salk Institute for Biological Studies

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

Just having the protein spikes in your system may damage you. Am I sure I want to take a vaccine that causes my body to produce these proteins?

Secondary:

"Playing vaccine roulette: Why the current strategy of staking everything on Covid-19 vaccines is a high-stakes wager"

Nuremberg Code - Wikipedia

Hahaha, I'm sure I'll regret this post later when it comes out the vaccines are the next best thing to swiss cheese and 100% fine.

We're still here....

The reason humanity has been so successful from the evolution stand point is because, in addition to random chance or God's Will, individuals have made their own decisions to Freeze, Fight or Flee. At least one third of them have made the "right" decision - regardless of the rationale.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,698
Points
1,060
A couple of more bits of data for the discussion


Common colds are among the most common illnesses. Many different viruses (rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, coronaviruses, and human metapneumoviruses) cause colds, but rhinoviruses (of which there are more than 100 subtypes) cause most colds. Colds caused by rhinoviruses occur more commonly in the spring and fall. Other viruses cause common coldlike illnesses at other times of the year.

Colds spread mainly when people’s hands come in contact with nasal secretions from an infected person. These secretions contain cold viruses. When people then touch their mouth, nose, or eyes, the viruses gain entry to the body and cause a cold. Less often, colds are spread when people breathe air containing droplets that were coughed or sneezed out by an infected person. A cold is most contagious during the first 1 or 2 days after symptoms develop.

In my personal opinion, regardless of the effects of the SARS Coronavirus 2, there is little reason to expect it to develop any differently than its already endemic cousins. A cure for the common cold is probably just as likely.

Also

Antibody levels are one piece of the puzzle when it comes to fighting Covid, but they don’t tell the whole story when it comes to immunity.

There’s more to the immune system than antibodies​

The recent NYU study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, focuses on antibody measurements (in a lab setting), but that’s just one of many aspects of the immune system that contribute to protection against Covid, according to Shane Crotty, professor at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology who studies how the immune system remembers infections and vaccines.

“Your immune system is complicated, and doesn’t just have one weapon,” Crotty says. “You’ve got neutralizing antibodies, other kinds of antibodies, you’ve got memory B cells and T cells.”


Consider the system of systems and a mutually supporting layered defense in depth. The vaccines are particular weapons. And are effective contributors to the defense. But they are not the only defense.

I have added the Moderna MRNA vaccine to my arsenal with two shots. My wife has added the Pfizer MRNA and the Astra Zeneca, or Oxford vaccines to her arsenal with a shot of each.

1629212153906.png

As the man said: You pays your money and you take your chances.

Good Luck! Deus Vult! Insh'Allah!
 

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
107
Points
580
Thanks for all the replies all.

You've all guessed anyway, yes this is in relation to mandatory jabs.

I don't want them YET because:

In my view you don't need to justify to us why you make a personal medical decision after weighing the pros and cons.


This is certainly concerning. It bothers me from a perspective of principle, forcing/coercing people and it raises a red flag to me of why suddenly in the past two weeks we've gone from 0 to 100 on the scale of pressure. There are other threads for debating the relative dangers of COVID for young healthy people versus the unknowns of novel vaccines.

To me the issue here is the historical principle in Canadian law that any patient has the right to decide what, if anything, is to be done with their body.

I think that deployment is different. You can't choose whether to charge that machine gun nest or not, you need to just do it when ordered, so I suppose vaccines and operational effectiveness would fall under that. You don't have a right to (potentially) get sick in those circumstances because that could impact the overall operational effectiveness of the unit. Assuming the vaccine is actually as safe as they claim ... if it isn't they are actually potentially hurting operational effectiveness to impost it. Only time will tell on that score.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,698
Points
1,060
In my view you don't need to justify to us why you make a personal medical decision after weighing the pros and cons.



This is certainly concerning. It bothers me from a perspective of principle, forcing/coercing people and it raises a red flag to me of why suddenly in the past two weeks we've gone from 0 to 100 on the scale of pressure. There are other threads for debating the relative dangers of COVID for young healthy people versus the unknowns of novel vaccines.

To me the issue here is the historical principle in Canadian law that any patient has the right to decide what, if anything, is to be done with their body.

I think that deployment is different. You can't choose whether to charge that machine gun nest or not, you need to just do it when ordered, so I suppose vaccines and operational effectiveness would fall under that. You don't have a right to (potentially) get sick in those circumstances because that could impact the overall operational effectiveness of the unit. Assuming the vaccine is actually as safe as they claim ... if it isn't they are actually potentially hurting operational effectiveness to impost it. Only time will tell on that score.

Underlying all of this is the fact that the CAF is a voluntary organization. Everybody volunteers to accept the terms of engagement. And everybody has a right to withdraw their services. Subject to the terms of the agreement.
 

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
107
Points
580
Nothing that the notwithstanding clause can't overcome.

In Canadian Criminal law, an assault is any application of force without the other person's consent. Stabbing someone with a needle, even if you didn't pin them down to do it, is an assault if the person did not consent to the injection.

Consent is vitiated if it is coerced or acquired under duress, fear, intimidation, or exercise of authority. This comes up fairly frequently in sexual assault law, where a woman acquiescing or even "agreeing" under duress from a boss or person of authority is a sexual assault even though he didn't actually pin her down and rip her clothes off. See, for example, R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 SCR 330, https://canlii.ca/t/1fqpm (paragraph 36 and following discusses this)
 

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
107
Points
580
Underlying all of this is the fact that the CAF is a voluntary organization. Everybody volunteers to accept the terms of engagement. And everybody has a right to withdraw their services. Subject to the terms of the agreement.

How far do we take this argument though? One could say that any form of employment is "voluntary", but do people not have the right to a job?

It would seem that they do, I don't think anyone would say that a prohibition on LGBTQ people in the CAF would be justified because it's a voluntary organization and you can withdraw your services if you don't want to give up that lifestyle?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,443
Points
1,040
You have the right to decide. And the employer has the right to decide whether you are employed or not.

In the military, it goes one step further. An unvax'd person is risking my health not just their own. One goes down as a casualty from the virus that's my problem now. Worse you become an infection vector for the unit and their families. The vax depending on type is not 100%. So now because of a selfish political stance (as it's been proven again and again that anti-vax sentiment is political, not medical) an unvax'd person is risking their unit.

I'm sure the collected folks here are aware of how diseases and illness are the worst enemies for armies throughout history. I know I've been on exercise where the flu and GI have decimated those available for operations.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,698
Points
1,060
How far do we take this argument though? One could say that any form of employment is "voluntary", but do people not have the right to a job?

It would seem that they do, I don't think anyone would say that a prohibition on LGBTQ people in the CAF would be justified because it's a voluntary organization and you can withdraw your services if you don't want to give up that lifestyle?

Right to a job? No.

Other than that, agreed.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,698
Points
1,060
You have the right to decide. And the employer has the right to decide whether you are employed or not.

In the military, it goes one step further. An unvax'd person is risking my health not just their own. One goes down as a casualty from the virus that's my problem now. Worse you become an infection vector for the unit and their families. The vax depending on type is not 100%. So now because of a selfish political stance (as it's been proven again and again that anti-vax sentiment is political, not medical) an unvax'd person is risking their unit.

I'm sure the collected folks here are aware of how diseases and illness are the worst enemies for armies throughout history. I know I've been on exercise where the flu and GI have decimated those available for operations.

Your politics. My principles.

But, as with Little Black Devil, other than that , agreed.
 

Kilted

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
616
Points
990
In Canadian Criminal law, an assault is any application of force without the other person's consent. Stabbing someone with a needle, even if you didn't pin them down to do it, is an assault if the person did not consent to the injection.

Consent is vitiated if it is coerced or acquired under duress, fear, intimidation, or exercise of authority. This comes up fairly frequently in sexual assault law, where a woman acquiescing or even "agreeing" under duress from a boss or person of authority is a sexual assault even though he didn't actually pin her down and rip her clothes off. See, for example, R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 SCR 330, https://canlii.ca/t/1fqpm (paragraph 36 and following discusses this)
I was referring to the fact that the government (Federal or any of the Provinces) could make vaccinations mandatory for everyone.
 

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
107
Points
580
I was referring to the fact that the government (Federal or any of the Provinces) could make vaccinations mandatory for everyone.

Legally I don't think they can. It would be a very interesting legal battle if they tried.

I think I know they can't, which is why I am seeing lots of releases were the "mandatory" vaccine actually means if you don't get the jab you have to be routinely tested which in my view is very different from "get the jab or we're putting you in jail or taking away your career/livelihood".
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
10,392
Points
1,360
In Canadian Criminal law, an assault is any application of force without the other person's consent. Stabbing someone with a needle, even if you didn't pin them down to do it, is an assault if the person did not consent to the injection.
So which Canadian federal government official should then be charged under C.C.C. 265? PM? Health Minister? Minister of Labour? 🤔
 

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
107
Points
580
So which Canadian federal government official should then be charged under C.C.C. 265? PM? Health Minister? Minister of Labour? 🤔

As of right now, so actual laws have been put in place. But arguably a case could be made that they are all parties to the offence if someone wanted to go that route.

It would be really interesting to start a private prosecution where someone was injured by a vaccine (and has good medical evidence to back that up) and then gets a charge sworn for aggravated assault on all of them, assuming circumstances where they had good evidence they only accepted the jab under duress from these government orders. Of course, the prosecution would withdraw the information almost immediately in all likelihood, but it would sure send a message.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,488
Points
1,140
Legally I don't think they can. It would be a very interesting legal battle if they tried.

I think I know they can't, which is why I am seeing lots of releases were the "mandatory" vaccine actually means if you don't get the jab you have to be routinely tested which in my view is very different from "get the jab or we're putting you in jail or taking away your career/livelihood".
What about schools that require kids to have their shots to attend?
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
10,392
Points
1,360
Of course, the prosecution would withdraw the information almost immediately in all likelihood, but it would sure send a message.
To whom, and would they really care? I doubt that the likes of Trudeau & Co. would give a toss what eventually made its way through the Federal Courts…not like legislation stops them from doing what they want to anyway.
 
Top