All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

[hattrick72]

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.

Would it be assault if the choice is: get the vaccine or live the next 1-x years in camp? The x being the length of time we are in a public health emergency.

 

[brihard]

Would it be assault if the choice is: get the vaccine or live the next 1-x years in camp? The x being the length of time we are in a public health emergency.

No, that might be other stuff.

Edited from my original reply- sorry, thought I was answering someone else.

 

[hattrick72]

No, that might be other stuff.

Edited from my original reply- sorry, thought I was answering someone else.

No worries, I didn't see the other post.

What would the other stuff be?

I know the US wants 98% inoculation, if we wanted the same and could only reach 95% or 97% I think we either go into brutal lockdowns as a whole, or they track or lock the remaining 1+million people.

 

[brihard]

No worries, I didn't see the other post.

What would the other stuff be?

I know the US wants 98% inoculation, if we wanted the same and could only reach 95% or 97% I think we either go into brutal lockdowns as a whole, or they track or lock the remaining 1+million people.

Not a chance. The population wouldn’t stand for it, and who do you imagine enforcing that? The lockdowns and assorted measures are justified by and only remain justified by ongoing threats to the capacity of the healthcare system. The fourth wave is waning, and there’s likely too little vulnerable population for it to surge again unless it mutates to genuinely defeat vaccines. Coming out of this one, with vaccine rates where they are, we should be good.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Would it be assault if the choice is: get the vaccine or live the next 1-x years in camp? The x being the length of time we are in a public health emergency.

What do you mean by " live in camp"? Since there is little political upside (and a lot of downside) to establishing camps in which to "concentrate" the unvaccinated population, I'm assuming that you are making reference to a possibility of military members being restricted to living in military facilities until the pandemic is over. That's not how the world, or the military, works. Most military pers do not "live in camp"; they live in their own homes, or rented accommodation with their spouses, significant others, children, pets and toys. The likely choice is get the vaccination or be released. The path to release may include a charge under the CSD (unlikely), a period of LWOP or ED&T and the processing of release procedures for those individuals whose refusal to meet a bona fide requirement for continued service seriously impairs their usefulness to or imposes an excessive administrative burden on the Canadian Forces (i.e. 5F release).

 

[hattrick72]

Not a chance. The population wouldn’t stand for it, and who do you imagine enforcing that? The lockdowns and assorted measures are justified by and only remain justified by ongoing threats to the capacity of the healthcare system. The fourth wave is waning, and there’s likely too little vulnerable population for it to surge again unless it mutates to genuinely defeat vaccines. Coming out of this one, with vaccine rates where they are, we should be good.

They have enforced every lockdown with success so far without any opposition for 18 months.

By brutal lockdown, I mean, you can't visit anyone outside your household for 2 months at a time, can't leave your local area without an essential reason during those two months. Much of the same things we have seen just throttled up a bit more until we get a higher vaccination rate.

I hope you are right, it would be nice if this was the last lockdown as this is the last wave to affect healthcare stability.

 

[brihard]

No, people and businesses have simply gone along with it. True enforcement in the sense of actual governmental authorities (police and public health) has been minimal.

I've got family living in western Australia. They have had enforcement. Us? Not so much.

 

[Remius]

They have enforced every lockdown with success so far without any opposition for 18 months.

By brutal lockdown, I mean, you can't visit anyone outside your household for 2 months at a time, can't leave your local area without an essential reason during those two months. Much of the same things we have seen just throttled up a bit more until we get a higher vaccination rate.

I hope you are right, it would be nice if this was the last lockdown as this is the last wave to affect healthcare stability.

Something similar could happen in the PS. Placed on LWOP for one year then go on priority list for another and then get the boot. Assuming it lasts that long. I suspect we’ll be seing a lot of people take “stress leave” to avoid any kind of penalty.

 

[hattrick72]

What do you mean by " live in camp"? Since there is little political upside (and a lot of downside) to establishing camps in which to "concentrate" the unvaccinated population, I'm assuming that you are making reference to a possibility of military members being restricted to living in military facilities until the pandemic is over. That's not how the world, or the military, works. Most military pers do not "live in camp"; they live in their own homes, or rented accommodation with their spouses, significant others, children, pets and toys. The likely choice is get the vaccination or be released. The path to release may include a charge under the CSD (unlikely), a period of LWOP or ED&T and the processing of release procedures for those individuals whose refusal to meet a bona fide requirement for continued service seriously impairs their usefulness to or imposes an excessive administrative burden on the Canadian Forces (i.e. 5F release).

No, I mean society as a whole. Canada doesn't have the infrastructure to place population in camps. The US does have safe facilities to isolate the unactivated from the vaccinated, if they chose to go that route.

I'm not saying it is likely, but if that is the choice: get vaccinated or live in camp X for 1-3 years while we rid the virus from our population. Is that assault

 

[hattrick72]

No, people and businesses have simply gone along with it. True enforcement in the sense of actual governmental authorities (police and public health) has been minimal.

I've got family living in western Australia. They have had enforcement. Us? Not so much.

If business and people didn't go along with it do you think our collective response would be different than Australia's?

 

[hattrick72]

Something similar could happen in the PS. Placed on LWOP for one year then go on priority list for another and then get the boot. Assuming it lasts that long. I suspect we’ll be seing a lot of people take “stress leave” to avoid any kind of penalty.

STI is going to be a mechanism people go for. In my opinion anyway

 

[brihard]

No, I mean society as a whole. Canada doesn't have the infrastructure to place population in camps. The US does have safe facilities to isolate the unactivated from the vaccinated, if they chose to go that route.

I'm not saying it is likely, but if that is the choice: get vaccinated or live in camp X for 1-3 years while we rid the virus from our population. Is that assault

No, that's not what assault is under our laws.

I see precisely zero chance of what you envision happening. There's no arrest and detention authority for anything like that, and legislature nor courts would go along with creating or upholding one. Nor would Canadian police enforce such a thing.

As for 'stress leave' (there's no such thing- it's sick leave)- remains to be seen. The public service will be seeing in the coming weeks how that plays out, and if members on sick leave will still be required to attest. I'm personally dealing with at least one such case and don't yet have clarification on how this will go, nor do the very senior levels of organizational management that I have access to ask these things.

 

[hattrick72]

No, that's not what assault is under our laws.

I see precisely zero chance of what you envision happening. There's no arrest and detention authority for anything like that, and legislature nor courts would go along with creating or upholding one. Nor would Canadian police enforce such a thing.

As for 'stress leave' (there's no such thing- it's sick leave)- remains to be seen. The public service will be seeing in the coming weeks how that plays out, and if members on sick leave will still be required to attest. I'm personally dealing with at least one such case and don't yet have clarification on how this will go, nor do the very senior levels of organizational management that I have access to ask these things.

I don't think we will ever see it either, but we are at the stage where we say get a vaccine or you can't work or make a living within our society. To me that is get the vaccine or live on the streets. I find this repulsive, but it seems many in society do not. For the military, the get the vaccine or release is viable IMO, but shouldn't translate into overall society.

I really don't know how to gauge the distance between go hungry in the streets, it is your choice. To, if you don't get the vaccine we will place you in a facility and feed you and keep everyone safe. It keeps you from starving and others from getting sick.

As for STI, I'm not saying stress leave. I'm saying short term illness, where insurance pays you 75% of your wage until you go on long term disability. Workplace stress is one form people can use, PTSD from a traumatic situation at work is another.

I'm not sure if DND employees have third same mechanism, I know they can hold their position for up to two years while on sick leave. Outside of providing doctors notes, I'm not sure we are able to force them to do anything other than provide their doctors note to continue leave.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No, that's not what assault is under our laws.

I see precisely zero chance of what you envision happening. There's no arrest and detention authority for anything like that, and legislature nor courts would go along with creating or upholding one. Nor would Canadian police enforce such a thing.

As for 'stress leave' (there's no such thing- it's sick leave)- remains to be seen. The public service will be seeing in the coming weeks how that plays out, and if members on sick leave will still be required to attest. I'm personally dealing with at least one such case and don't yet have clarification on how this will go, nor do the very senior levels of organizational management that I have access to ask these things.

All interments were done under OIC's, not sure how that would play out now with the Charter of Rights?

 

[brihard]

All interments were done under OIC's, not sure how that would play out now with the Charter of Rights?

Any and all actions by government authorities is subject to the Charter. Could the legislature conceivably pass new legislation and invoke the Notwithstanding Clause against the sections governing legal rights? Conceivably yes, but it would be political suicide and they know it, nor would such actions realistically be enforceable. We wouldn’t do it.

 

[lenaitch]

We're seeing issues with businesses not accepting CAF member's vaccine books as proof of vaccination since its federal and not the provincial certification. The CAF told members not to worry, our needle books would be good enough. Guess the CAF forgot to tell everyone else.

It's actually mentioned in the guidelines issued by the Ontario Ministry of Health, but given that focus has been on the standard Ontario vaccination receipt and upcoming QR document, and compliance is on the shoulders of literally thousands of owners, barkeeps, wait staff, etc., it seems like a lesson in poor communications.

"Patrons may present a receipt issued by the Ontario government (which may include a watermark), or a receipt signed by an Indigenous health provider, or a CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) proof of vaccination, or a receipt from another jurisdiction."​

​

If it's a problem in facilities near military establishments who might regularly encounter military personnel, imagine what it's like in places like Toronto or any other place remote from an establishment.

 

[lenaitch]

Would it be assault if the choice is: get the vaccine or live the next 1-x years in camp? The x being the length of time we are in a public health emergency.

You are still not getting the legal definition of the offence of 'assault', the reference of which was graciously provided to you.

 

[Misses muffett]

"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.

So eloquent. Driving on the right side of the road and wearing a seatbelts are laws; this is a mandate. You are drawing false comparisons. There is no absolute freedom when you invoke ultimatums.

Yeah, sure I can find a new job, Ive had plenty...however Ive been invested in this one for quite some time. How would you like it if the bank said suddenly one day after years of paying into an investment, "You either do X (which youre clearly against) or we close your account without refund?"

Depending on how one uses their authority it could be a nasty word. Surely, if you looked outside your own society you would see many professionals with opinions (whatever that means) that would beg to differ. Alas, though you will seek out information to confirm your own bias.

Our laws used to condemn lots of things that are now legalized: being homosexual, smoking marijuana etc. But again this is a mandate...and Im not into dating men

 

[lenaitch]

So eloquent. Driving on the right side of the road and wearing a seatbelts are laws; this is a mandate. You are drawing false comparisons. There is no absolute freedom when you invoke ultimatums.

Yeah, sure I can find a new job, Ive had plenty...however Ive been invested in this one for quite some time. How would you like it if the bank said suddenly one day after years of paying into an investment, "You either do X (which youre clearly against) or we close your account without refund?"

Depending on how one uses their authority it could be a nasty word. Surely, if you looked outside your own society you would see many professionals with opinions (whatever that means) that would beg to differ. Alas, though you will seek out information to confirm your own bias.

Our laws used to condemn lots of things that are now legalized: being homosexual, smoking marijuana etc. But again this is a mandate...and Im not into dating men

"So eloquent"

Why thank you, but I get the sense that I have been 'damned with faint praise'.

There is no "absolute freedom" in Canada or, I suspect any other functioning democracy. People that like to quote the Charter often conveniently forget the very first Section:

1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.​

While I'm not aware of any element of the Covid response has been put to this test, at any level, the broad consensus holds that they would survive. Believe the expert opinions or not.

It is true that they are "mandates", but they have been issued within the general legal authorities given to employers to manage the health and safety of their workplaces and other labour laws. There will be underlying 'enabling' legislation. I'm not aware that Parliament has passed legislation surrounding the workplace use of cannabis, but employers have invoked mandates specific to the various workplaces. Like them or not.

Out of simple practicality, not every action of the State has to flow from an individual Act of Parliament (proposed Bill, three readings, committee, etc.). For example, if you want to eat in a restaurant in Ontario, the requirement to show proof of vaccination are laid out in Regulation 364/20 under the 'Reopening Ontario Act. Regulations are approved by Cabinet, not the Legislature and, by their nature, can be more responsive and dynamic.

I get it; your employer has, or is about to, impose a new workplace rule that you're not particularly thrilled with. It seems you have three choices; comply, don't comply and leave, don't comply and fight it. Your call - good luck with whichever path you choose. I'm sure you could find civilian employment that is absolutely free of any rules you don't agree with.

 

[QV]

There are way too many people filled with glee on this creep towards authoritarianism.