• 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

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
378
Points
1,130
Actually not surprised. No doubt this has been discussed at the Police Association of Ontario level. What remains to be seen is whether the TPA is in step with the PAOs position or is an outlier - I haven't seen positions from other major associations.
Sounds like some emergency services locals are fighting pretty hard against mask and vaccination mandates in the U.S.

 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
865
Points
1,040

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
378
Points
1,130
Says he spent 95 days in hospital before finally passing at age 41. Too long to suffer. Too young to die.
Cordero was initially diagnosed with pneumonia and admitted to a hospital on March 30, 2020, where he was later diagnosed with COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles[18] in critical condition, on a ventilator, and being treated with dialysis and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).[19] On April 18, 2020, his right leg was amputated due to a blood clot as a result of complications from his illness.[20] By May 1, 2020, he had major lung damage including "holes in his lungs" and lung scarring,[21] and had a tracheostomy tube placed.[22][23][24][18]

On July 5, 2020, after 95 days in the hospital, Cordero died at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles at age 41.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
586
Points
910
Since 45% of the US population has hypertension or is treated for hypertension, 13% of the US population has diabetes and 43% is obese, I would say that people in “poor health” make up the majority of people in the US. Shouldn’t we attempt to protect the majority of the population?
 

hattrick72

Member
Reaction score
46
Points
380
Since 45% of the US population has hypertension or is treated for hypertension, 13% of the US population has diabetes and 43% is obese, I would say that people in “poor health” make up the majority of people in the US. Shouldn’t we attempt to protect the majority of the population?
I think they made their choice and knew the consequences and should have to pay for any healthcare required out of pocket. Not a cent should come from the public purse for these people that purposefully put themselves at risk. By putting themselves at risk, they put me at risk of not having a hospital bed should I become injured. Heart disease is the leading cause of death and costs the most to our healthcare.

Checks notes

Change your question to antivaxers please, so that my rant makes complete sense.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
586
Points
910
I think they made their choice and knew the consequences and should have to pay for any healthcare required out of pocket. Not a cent should come from the public purse for these people that purposefully put themselves at risk. By putting themselves at risk, they put me at risk of not having a hospital bed should I become injured. Heart disease is the leading cause of death and costs the most to our healthcare.

Checks notes

Change your question to antivaxers please, so that my rant makes complete sense.
We should just let those people die then? I don’t mean to be crass but that’d be a significant portion of our military…

AFAIK, anti-vaxers don’t make up the majority of our population. As much as I disagree with their stance, they should be treated for deceases. There is no law that say thou shall not be obese or thou shall get the needles.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,808
Points
1,040
We should just let those people die then? I don’t mean to be crass but that’d be a significant portion of our military…

AFAIK, anti-vaxers don’t make up the majority of our population. As much as I disagree with their stance, they should be treated for deceases. There is no law that say thou shall not be obese or thou shall get the needles.
I actually agree with your position wholeheartedly.

On the issue of "no law ... thou shall get needles." The Federal and various provincial "Emergencies" Acts are very broad and give the various executives very broad powers to make orders that deal with the emergency. While there is nothing directly about accepting forced medical treatment , there is really nothing against it either (one might have to argue the applicability/non-applicability of S 7 of the Charter to such an order) but more importantly, there are provisions that could greatly curtail movement. Those provisions could easily be tailored to people who either have a disease or alternatively do not have a specified levels of protection against it.

I don't want to get involved in any great debate about whether this is right or wrong or whether, in the circumstances, these provisions should be triggered I just want to point out that there are legal regimes throughout Canada that give extraordinary powers to the various government executives to hand down orders and regulations that can bypass the ordinary legislative process and which may very well pass muster as avoiding Charter issues as "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

🍻
 

hattrick72

Member
Reaction score
46
Points
380
We should just let those people die then? I don’t mean to be crass but that’d be a significant portion of our military…

AFAIK, anti-vaxers don’t make up the majority of our population. As much as I disagree with their stance, they should be treated for deceases. There is no law that say thou shall not be obese or thou shall get the needles.
No, I was being mostly sarcastic as I've seen this kind of sentiment towards those who chose not to take the jab.

I agree with you completely. We need to protect our population and we shouldn't be segregating based on vaccine, smoking, heart disease etc.

As for the original post, we need better education on the subject. Perhaps a larger roll for phys-ed at every level of education could be a great start.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,749
Points
940
I find they are going to far, I can see an argument for saying no to unvaccinated people indoors, but banning them from an outdoor patio, that's vindictive and there is little to no science to support significant transmission in outdoor settings. My wife is still having heart issues, which they still are not sure what is causing them, all of the vaccines have warnings about potentiel heart issues, so she is rightly worried about the possible effect and going by her previous history the likelhood of a reaction is high.
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
15
Points
480
I think the most logical post I have seen in the thread and explains why we need to push vaccines is the one that mentioned the vulnerable chid unable to receive it and at risk.

Passports I do think are funny and read an interesting take on that I can't recall the wording of but boils down to - If you did the right thing, got the needle to protect yourself, you have to carry something to prove it. The person that didn't get it doesn't have to carry anything, goes to the restaurant and sits on the patio. Can't go to the bar, house party. Theatre - who really goes there anymore? Stay home, make popcorn and enjoy the movie for a fraction with friends and family. Concerts - pay a small fortune to watch someone lip sync to their electronic altered recording? Stay home, have a party and turn on the radio. No gym - do anti-vaxxers actually use them? Who is really getting punished?
 

hattrick72

Member
Reaction score
46
Points
380
I think the most logical post I have seen in the thread and explains why we need to push vaccines is the one that mentioned the vulnerable chid unable to receive it and at risk.

Passports I do think are funny and read an interesting take on that I can't recall the wording of but boils down to - If you did the right thing, got the needle to protect yourself, you have to carry something to prove it. The person that didn't get it doesn't have to carry anything, goes to the restaurant and sits on the patio. Can't go to the bar, house party. Theatre - who really goes there anymore? Stay home, make popcorn and enjoy the movie for a fraction with friends and family. Concerts - pay a small fortune to watch someone lip sync to their electronic altered recording? Stay home, have a party and turn on the radio. No gym - do anti-vaxxers actually use them? Who is really getting punished?
I think it boils down to this. Working and getting an education in our society is an essential requirement. If going forward we require full vaccination or twice weekly testing to participate; I am on board 100%. Ideally in an outbreak when cases per day are above a regions average threshold, every person regardless of vaccination status should test twice a week to ensure we can shut the spread down.

However, if being vaccinated is the only requirement to partake in the above activities, I completely dressage with that premise.

As for restaurants, concerts, movies etc. I don't care if unvaccinated individuals can partake in that. I would just like to see it shutdown during an outbreak as described above.

If we are going to limit education and working to the vaccinated only, then we need to provide a social assistance to the ones that choose to not get vaccinated so they don't go homeless. Without this, then I feel we are infringing on their charter rights.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,749
Points
940
Recent court case in the US, where someone who has had Covid, showed that they already have the antibodies and do not need the vaccine
 

Misses muffett

New Member
Reaction score
-3
Points
110
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
2,103
Points
990
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
-3
Points
110
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
409
Points
810
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
2,103
Points
990
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:
Top