• 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

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
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The recent NYU study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, focuses on antibody measurements (in a lab setting), but that’s just one of many aspects of the immune system that contribute to protection against Covid,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
91
Points
430
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 Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
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
91
Points
430
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
91
Points
430
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
811
Points
1,010
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 Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
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 Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
239
Points
560
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
91
Points
430
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
2,752
Points
1,160
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
91
Points
430
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
605
Points
910
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
2,752
Points
1,160
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.
 

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
430
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.
True it would probably scare the lower level people more ... and maybe it would be an empty gesture. Would probably be better as an argument on a lawsuit for battery.
 

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
430
What about schools that require kids to have their shots to attend?
Historically the provinces that have mandated vaccines for school children (I believe only Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba do), there have always been exemptions so that would get around the argument of "force" probably. It seems that this is what they are doing now at the government level, plus allowing for testing/screening of unvaccinated individuals rather than terminating them. Which actually seems like a reasonable compromise. People who don't want the jab don't get it, and those who are scared of the unjabbed (notwithstanding their own vaccinated status) have peace of mind that the unjabbed isn't carrying any COVID-19.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
697
Points
990
Historically the provinces that have mandated vaccines for school children (I believe only Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba do), there have always been exemptions so that would get around the argument of "force" probably. It seems that this is what they are doing now at the government level, plus allowing for testing/screening of unvaccinated individuals rather than terminating them. Which actually seems like a reasonable compromise. People who don't want the jab don't get it, and those who are scared of the unjabbed (notwithstanding their own vaccinated status) have peace of mind that the unjabbed isn't carrying any COVID-19.
Isn't that going to be awfully expensive though, to have hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of kids tested on a regular basis? School boards are always complaining about funding, I don't see how this is sustainable unless the tests are done & paid for by the families, which I'm not opposed to.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
Points
1,060
Isn't that going to be awfully expensive though, to have hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of kids tested on a regular basis? School boards are always complaining about funding, I don't see how this is sustainable unless the tests are done & paid for by the families, which I'm not opposed to.

So you are going to coerce payment from parents to attend a public facility to which they are already under coercion to send their children?

The state mandates (starting to detest that word - nothing is given), the state requires that children be sent to school under threat of the law.

The state is, by definition, coercive.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,752
Points
1,160
So you are going to coerce payment from parents to attend a public facility to which they are already under coercion to send their children?

The state mandates (starting to detest that word - nothing is given), the state requires that children be sent to school under threat of the law.

The state is, by definition, coercive.
Why stop at corrosion to pay to just the parents of school kids? Last I checked, I’m still paying municipal school taxes even though my 29-year old son has been out of school for….a while.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
697
Points
990
So you are going to coerce payment from parents to attend a public facility to which they are already under coercion to send their children?

The state mandates (starting to detest that word - nothing is given), the state requires that children be sent to school under threat of the law.

The state is, by definition, coercive.
I wouldn't go so far as coerce. But practically speaking, I don't see how else this arrangement would work.

Are the school boards going to be expected to provide regular testing for non-vaccinated students? If so, where will the money come from to pay for those tests? Would the school boards have to raise school fees? Do we collectively pay for it, perhaps in the form of property tax increases?

Or will they tell the families of non-vaccinated students that the onus is on them to provide a negative test?



No idea either way. Am just spit-balling scenarios as per the above posts related to schools.

🤷‍♂️
 
Top