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

Disobeying an unlawful/unethical order - Mandatory Vaccinations

cmdj1982

Guest
Reaction score
3
Points
30
We've all been told since BM(O)Q that we are allowed to disobey unethical/unlawful orders. Would someone be able to point me in the right direction for which Regs/Orders the guidelines for doing so fall under?

QR&O?
DAOD?

Just wanting to better understand what qualifies as such, what actions I can take, and what protections are offered to a person who challenges their superior in such a way.

Thanks for any/all help :)
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
558
Points
910
As per QR&O 19.015 and 19.02

"19.015 - LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS​

Every officer and non-commissioned member shall obey lawful commands and orders of a superior officer.

NOTES​

(A) The expression "superior officer" includes a non-commissioned member. (See article 1.02 - Definitions.)
(B) Usually there will be no doubt as to whether a command or order is lawful or unlawful. In a situation, however, where the subordinate does not know the law or is uncertain of it he shall, even though he doubts the lawfulness of the command, obey unless the command is manifestly unlawful.
(C) An officer or non-commissioned member is not justified in obeying a command or order that is manifestly unlawful. In other words, if a subordinate commits a crime in complying with a command that is manifestly unlawful, he is liable to be punished for the crime by a civil or military court. A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal; for example, a command by an officer or non-commissioned member to shoot a member for only having used disrespectful words or a command to shoot an unarmed child.
(D) With respect to riots, subsection 32(2) of the Criminal Code (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter C-46) states:
"32. (2) Every one who is bound by military law to obey the command of his superior officer is justified in obeying any command given by his superior officer for the suppression of a riot unless the order is manifestly unlawful."
(C)

19.02 - CONFLICTING LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS​

(1) If an officer or non-commissioned member receives a lawful command or order that he considers to be in conflict with a previous lawful command or order received by him, he shall orally point out the conflict to the superior officer who gave the later command or order.
(2) If the superior officer still directs the officer or non-commissioned member to obey the later command or order, he shall do so.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,295
Points
940
Just to take what Haggis said a step further, note that there is nothing here about "ethical" orders just "lawful" or "unlawful" orders. Note as well the justification to refuse the "unlawful order" only occurs when the order is "manifestly unlawful". There is no legislation respecting "ethical" or "unethical" orders.

It's possible that an "unethical" order may also be a " manifestly unlawful" order but that's a question of fact in the circumstances.

"Manifestly unlawful" has been defined by the Canadian Supreme Court in Finta as being:

As Justice Cory explained in Finta, “manifestly unlawful” is an order that “offends the conscience of every reasonable, right thinking person; it must be an order which is obviously and flagrantly wrong. The order cannot be in a grey area or be merely questionable; rather it must patently and obviously be wrong.” The determination of “manifestly unlawful” is as stated in subsection (5) a question of law.

🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
397
Points
910
Just a point of philosophy: every individual is morally entitled to refuse an order on grounds of personal conscience. Having said that, every individual that does so needs to be aware that there will be consequences. The best of the objectors accept the consequences.

Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali is a personal hero. There are a lot like him.

On the other hand I have little time for people who plead their conscience but expect to be excused consequences.
 

Kilted

Full Member
Reaction score
195
Points
560
When was the last time that someone was charged for giving an unlawful order.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,680
Points
890
Likely somewhere in the court martials of L'Abbe, Seward, Boland, Matchee, Brocklebank and Brown.

Unfortunately, the Chief Military Judge web sites (DWAN and public facing) do not include many older court martials; you can see some of the follow-on work at the Court Martial Appeal Court.

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,179
Points
940
Just a point of philosophy: every individual is morally entitled to refuse an order on grounds of personal conscience. Having said that, every individual that does so needs to be aware that there will be consequences. The best of the objectors accept the consequences.

Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali is a personal hero. There are a lot like him.

On the other hand I have little time for people who plead their conscience but expect to be excused consequences.
My Grandfather was a Consciousness Objector in WWI, instead of a gun he became a stretcher bearer to help his friends. that took guts.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
558
Points
910
Likely somewhere in the court martials of L'Abbe, Seward, Boland, Matchee, Brocklebank and Brown.

Unfortunately, the Chief Military Judge web sites (DWAN and public facing) do not include many older court martials; you can see some of the follow-on work at the Court Martial Appeal Court.

I don't recall Labbé being charged with anything, but his subordinate, LCol Mathieu, was charged with Negligent Performance of a Military Duty for stepping outside the ROE by ordering his troops to shoot fleeing looters. He was acquitted during two courts martial.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,295
Points
940
Seward negligent performance of military duty as well. Convicted. 3 months imprisonment. Dismissed from CAF.

🍻
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,680
Points
890
Seward was sentenced, by a jury of his peers (old court martial rules had the panel determine guilt and set sentence) to a severe reprimand. Civilian judges, in appeal, jailed him and tossed him from the military.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
368
Points
880
Why do I have the feeling this has to do with vaccination? :unsure:
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,680
Points
890
Refusing vaccination is another, distinct charge under the NDA.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,516
Points
890
Refusing vaccination is another, distinct charge under the NDA.
And CAF isn't ordering COVID vaccinations anyway.

It would be helpful if the OP could give us an example of precisely what sort of order they have concerns about.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
558
Points
910
Refusing vaccination is another, distinct charge under the NDA.
NDA 126/QR&O 103.58 is an interesting section. The "Notes" state (emphasis is mine):

"(A) No authority exists whereby a person can be forced actually to undergo inoculation, etc., although he can be ordered to submit himself to such a procedure. Failure of a person to submit to inoculation. etc., in spite of an order requiring him to do so, would constitute an offence on his part. “Reasonable excuse” is a defence to a charge under section 126 of the National Defence Act. (5 June 2008)

(B) Persons who refuse to submit to inoculation, etc., who are able to prove sincere conviction on the ground of religious belief or other scruple should not be charged under section 126 of the National Defence Act. The main purpose of the section is to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces will not evade important service by refusing to submit to inoculation, etc., when failure to be inoculated would mean that they could not be sent on duty to a particular area.

(C) The word “wilfully” in section 126 of the National Defence Act signifies that the alleged offender knew what he was doing, intended to do what he did and was not acting under compulsion.

The story of Sgt (ret'd Mike Kipling shows another side of this as he refused the anthrax vaccine believing this specific vaccine was unsafe. The Judge agreed with him and his charges were stayed. Interestingly, he was already deployed into an SDA when he was ordered to submit to the vaccination.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,295
Points
940
... The story of Sgt (ret'd Mike Kipling shows another side of this as he refused the anthrax vaccine believing this specific vaccine was unsafe. The Judge agreed with him and his charges were stayed. Interestingly, he was already deployed into an SDA when he was ordered to submit to the vaccination.
The prosecution took the order for a stay to appeal and the CMAC overturned the stay and ordered a new trial. The prosecution decided against retrying Kipling.

2002 CMAC 1 (CanLII) | R. v. Kipling | CanLII

🍻
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
41
Points
530
I imagine we will just add the vaccine to the current list of required vaccinations for service in Canada. I don’t get a sign off on my APRV unless i have the correct set of needles in my arm. No APRV, no duty. Malingerers (sp?) won’t have an issue using this as a way to get out of their jobs. My trade would be motivated as it would enable us to continue doing what we love to do.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
447
Points
930
While it's unlikely that the CF will mandate vaccination, it is already a requirement that one meets the standard for deployment. If someone were to refuse vaccination, and therefore become undeployable, that someone might be making an equivalent decision to become unemployable. Specifically because the undeployability relates to an issue over which they have personal control.
 

cmdj1982

Guest
Reaction score
3
Points
30
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:

  • No long-term observations on health yet
  • No ability to sue the vax makers if you suffer adverse effects
  • While approved by Health Canada, no FDA Approval on any vax's yet, just approval for emergency use

I'm not anti-vax. My family and kids have their shots. But there are already horror stories (although rare), and governments around the world are pushing this so hard, so fast. Something doesn't feel right and I simply want to bide my time and see the effects and be provided protection (pay protection, particularly) 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.

The madnatory vax for federal employees is disheartening, TBH...

 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,000
Points
1,060
I'm not anti-vax. My family and kids have their shots. But there are already horror stories (although rare), and governments around the world are pushing this so hard, so fast. Something doesn't feel right and I simply want to bide my time and see the effects and be provided protection (pay protection, particularly) 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.

The madnatory vax for federal employees is disheartening, TBH...


I don't know anyone who can't work because they were vaccinated. If you die because you aren't vaccinated it won't be very good for them either, and it's the unvaccinated (of all ages) who are being culled right now by the Delta variant.
 
Top