• 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

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,876
Points
910
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...

It is kind of moot point now, isn’t it?
I expect that there will be a CANFORGEN this week on the subject and it will be a lawful order to get vaccinated.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
It is kind of moot point now, isn’t it?
I expect that there will be a CANFORGEN this week on the subject and it will be a lawful order to get vaccinated.

Just like mepacrine?

Not just stirring the pot. I have had my two jabs. But cmdj1982 has a valid point. All the more valid in that the virus continues to mutate, like all viruses, while the consequences of both getting the vaccines (mixed or not) and not getting the vaccines are variable.

The member should be able to take comfort from being absolved of the consequences of following a lawful order, with the full weight of the chain of command and the institution supporting him/her in the event of negative consequences. Exactly the way the CAR was supported.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
653
Points
1,060
It is kind of moot point now, isn’t it?
I expect that there will be a CANFORGEN this week on the subject and it will be a lawful order to get vaccinated.
I don't think it's that easy, this isn't an order to show up for Base Duty O shift or to sweep a floor. One person will take this as their hill to die on, and it will end up in Federal court.

We just saw our entire military justice system upended because of Vance's CFOO placing military judges under the VCDS, if you don't think NDA 126 will get challenged then that's pretty naive thinking. Maybe this time we'll get an actual judgement (unlink Kipling which kinda disappeared), potentially from the Supreme Court.

DS Hat on: Slightly changed the title of the thread, as I think this is a really important discussion to have in light of the Government announcement.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,903
Points
1,040
I don't think it's that easy, this isn't an order to show up for Base Duty O shift or to sweep a floor. One person will take this as their hill to die on, and it will end up in Federal court.

We just saw our entire military justice system upended because of Vance's CFOO placing military judges under the VCDS, if you don't think NDA 126 will get challenged then that's pretty naive thinking. Maybe this time we'll get an actual judgement (unlink Kipling which kinda disappeared), potentially from the Supreme Court.
This would be a good time to do it. There's nothing like a real public health threat and demonstrable evidence to get a court to make a real-life practical decision rather than some airy-fairy mumble about unlegislated "individua" rights trumping public safety and security.

🍻
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
653
Points
1,060
This would be a good time to do it. There's nothing like a real public health threat and demonstrable evidence to get a court to make a real-life practical decision rather than some airy-fairy mumble about unlegislated "individua" rights trumping public safety and security.

🍻
I don't think the demonstrable evidence is going to go the direction you think it is, and discovery from the "refusing vaccine" person is going to pull a lot of data out of the Government.

  • CAF population is between 18-60 years of age, only the 50+ folks have statistically significant rate of hospitalization from COVID19.
  • COVID19 vaccines reduce risk of infection, but don't actually stop it. They just reduce severity but that's already statistically low for our populations. This calculus changes for a expeditionary deployment where there's reduced R2 or R3 resources so makes much more sense to make it a DAG requirement
  • If a fully vaccinated person contracts COVID19 (symptomatic or asymptomatic), studies are showing they have the same viral load (can spread it) just as much as an unvaccinated person. So the public safety/security nexus is a weak argument.
  • There's only less than 15% of the CAF who haven't been vaccinated (May numbers). If 85% isn't herd immunity, then we'll never achieve it so there's no point to mandate vaccines because there won't be a reasonable statistical change in infection rates.
  • Federal Govenrment lawyers (I know you're a fan) will also have to explain why if the COVID-19 vaccines are so important that even with 85%+ of the CAF vaccinated there was/is barely any reduction in PHMs.

I say all this as someone who was vaccinated as a Pri 3 a scant few weeks after all our CFHS folks got theirs.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,429
Points
890
The military judges' petulant "we can't be charged" was rightfully tossed by competent jurors at CMAC.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
This would be a good time to do it. There's nothing like a real public health threat and demonstrable evidence to get a court to make a real-life practical decision rather than some airy-fairy mumble about unlegislated "individua" rights trumping public safety and security.

🍻
You are talking about expediency vs principle, surely?

Hard cases make bad law is an adage or legal maxim. The phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. In other words, a general law is better drafted for the average circumstance as this will be more common.


1629049157732.png
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,903
Points
1,040
I don't think the demonstrable evidence is going to go the direction you think it is, and discovery from the "refusing vaccine" person is going to pull a lot of data out of the Government.

  • CAF population is between 18-60 years of age, only the 50+ folks have statistically significant rate of hospitalization from COVID19.
Being over 50+ that makes me feel that our more significant risk isn't worthy of public health care protection. I disagree.
  • COVID19 vaccines reduce risk of infection, but don't actually stop it. They just reduce severity but that's already statistically low for our populations. This calculus changes for a expeditionary deployment where there's reduced R2 or R3 resources so makes much more sense to make it a DAG requirement
That may be the case but reduced severity is important not only to the individual but to reduce the likelihood of further spreading and mutation.
  • If a fully vaccinated person contracts COVID19 (symptomatic or asymptomatic), studies are showing they have the same viral load (can spread it) just as much as an unvaccinated person. So the public safety/security nexus is a weak argument.
Actually my understanding is that a vaccinated persons viral load is lower. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/...-transmission-vaccinated-cases.pdf?sc_lang=en
  • There's only less than 15% of the CAF who haven't been vaccinated (May numbers). If 85% isn't herd immunity, then we'll never achieve it so there's no point to mandate vaccines because there won't be a reasonable statistical change in infection rates.
I know this sounds like the same old trope but you do not eradicate viruses/disease through herd immunity. Smallpox and polio were eradicated by massive vaccination programs. Many others massively reduced in harming children. The 1918 Flu still circulates over 100 years later because too few people are vaccinated against it and it keeps mutating in the general population and creates between 9 to 48 million illnesses, 140 to 810,000 hospitalizations, and 12 to 61,000 deaths annually.
  • Federal Govenrment lawyers (I know you're a fan) will also have to explain why if the COVID-19 vaccines are so important that even with 85%+ of the CAF vaccinated there was/is barely any reduction in PHMs.
I'm not a fan of government lawyers. I was one part-time and full-time for a few years but that's quite different from being a fan. It's not up to lawyers to explain; its up to them to present the evidence of expert immunologists and others.
I say all this as someone who was vaccinated as a Pri 3 a scant few weeks after all our CFHS folks got theirs.
Got mine too but as an older-folk priority. It was no inconvenience, did not threaten my rights as a citizen, and made me feel better for having lessened the chances of a health risk to myself, my family and my neighbours.

I genuinely cannot understand the anti-vax hype that seems to run rampant through some of the elements of our society. Maybe that's because I was a member of the school-age children of the 1950s who was routinely lined up in school for some "needle" and as a result watched many childhood diseases that had threatened me and my peers disappear.

Honestly, I simply can't understand the mentality of folks who scream "you're violating my legal rights" at the drop of a hat. Maybe its because they have never been threatened by the diseases we were back then and watched disappear. Or maybe its just an inflated sense of themselves. :unsure:

🍻

The military judges' petulant "we can't be charged" was rightfully tossed by competent jurors jurists at CMAC.
FTFY

😉
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,903
Points
1,040
You are talking about expediency vs principle, surely?

View attachment 66039
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.

😉
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
Well, Typhoid Mary had rights although the courts ruled against her.

On the other hand Jenny Geddes was highly effective asserting her rights regardless of the courts.

Daft and Barmy can give you a fair account of how many people like Jenny, protestant, catholic or Hindu, are necessary to upset the courts.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,593
Points
1,060
Well, Typhoid Mary had rights although the courts ruled against her.

On the other hand Jenny Geddes was highly effective asserting her rights regardless of the courts.

Daft and Barmy can give you a fair account of how many people like Jenny, protestant, catholic or Hindu, are necessary to upset the courts.

She was effective at stool CQB, certainly :)

 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
701
Points
990
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...

Your points aren’t invalid. And as you stated, you aren’t anti-vax, but playing it safe as you have a pretty large family to support.

Pro’s and cons to either direction on this. I can understand where your thought process is coming from.


One thing most of us do is we neglect how valuable of an investment good insurance can be. Most people aren’t anywhere near as well educated about insurance products as they think they are.

Sit down with an insurance broker to review what you have, and what you need. That way IF you somehow become unable to work due to an adverse reaction, you may be able to get insurance for that & be covered.

Better than being screwed and unable to support the family. Maybe that would help put your mind at ease, and get vaccinated when the proper time comes for you.


^ just random thoughts
 

materialpigeonfibre

New Member
Reaction score
5
Points
130
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
"ADE occurs when the antibodies generated during an immune response recognize and bind to a pathogen, but they are unable to prevent infection. Instead, these antibodies act as a “Trojan horse,” allowing the pathogen to get into cells and exacerbate the immune response."

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
"In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls."
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.
 
Last edited:

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
130
Points
480
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
2,137
Points
990
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
240
Points
560
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
2,790
Points
1,160
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 Legend
Reaction score
1,330
Points
1,060
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 Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
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.
 
Top