All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

[ballz]

Do you equate this pandemic to going to war for your country?

That literally has zero relevance to the argument. You continue to want to argue the merits of the decision rather than the concept of unlimited liability. Like I said, if you can tell me why unlimited liability does not apply, I'm all ears. But as long as you want to argue that the merits of the decision factors into the equation I could not care less, as the requirement for soldier's to adhere to unlimited liability makes the balance of risk/benefits a secondary, trivial discussion.

Generally I agree. But we must think about 2 things, (1) unlawful commands; and (2) is telling the good people to leave what got us in this situation to begin with ?

1) Are you making an argument that this an unlawful command?

2) No one is telling good people to leave. They're telling people who don't understand unlimited liability to leave.... understanding and honouring the concept of unlimited liability is a pretty important piece to being one of the good soldiers and not one of the shitty ones.

Right now the system will sacrifice great Cpl for the craptastic LT(N) 9 times out of 10. Lets keep in mind the problem here is the craptastic LT(N) and they are the ones that should be corrected to released.

Look I'm more than willing to hate on the CAF for keeping shitty people around and causing good people to leave as a result, I just don't see how that is applicable here. There is nothing that indicates that people who don't want the vaccination are primarily good, anecdotally a lot of people might tell you that there's a lot of bad apples getting booted out because of this.... to which I just point out the weak leadership that must have existed if they weren't already booted out, but that's neither here nor there.

But beyond that, while unlimited liability can be invoked, it has more to do with following lawful authority. Reservists are not subject to unlimited liability (unless on class C I believe) but are subject to the vaccine directive.

They're subject to unlimited liability anytime they are on duty... unlimited liability is part of the ethos and found as a "fundamental belief and expectation." It is codified in law by "lawful authority," NDA offences for not following lawful authority, etc.

However, this is the best nuance brought forward yet. Theoretically, a reservist who just doesn't parade while this is a requirement would technically not be violating any lawful orders (albeit they'd be on NES).

Which brings us back to "conditions of employment," for which employers are allowed to define as long as they are not discriminatory (on the grounds laid out in the Canadian Act) and anyone who doesn't meet those requirements can be terminated. No different for any employer/employee relationship and, just like everyone else who has employment conditions changed on them so that they no longer meet the requirements, should be eligible for EI benefits (notwithstanding the Minister inappropriately saying they won't be).


The only way that this could have been handled better, in my opinion, is:

1) Charge them under the NDA. The calculus in being too scared to take this to the SCC, I just don't get it. If it is an unconstitutional law, then we need to know anyway, "though the heavens fall."

2) Offering an expedited 4(c) release before going into remedial measures and a 5(f) release probably would have been more ideal.

 

[ballz]

Or are you mad I pointed that out to the guy who lost so much confidence in his leadership that he quit, but says to shut up and do what you’re told or quit like him?

My values (high standards, accountability, integrity) don't align with the institution's values, so yes, I left to greener pastures. However, I followed every lawful order that was given to me until the day I left, including the 6-year period (since 2015) that I knew I would be releasing and including during the 8 months where my release memo was in. I didn't love it, but I swore an oath to do so. I owe the world three things, what I say I'll do, when I say I'll do it, for the price I said I'll do it for. I said I'd abide by unlimited liability, for as long as I was still in uniform, for the compensation that was dropped in my bank account twice a month.

Resigning in protest may get some attention if you’re high enough.

Had nothing to do with getting attention. The CAF is what it is, they can keep going the way they are going, I'm just not willing to follow their lead anymore and so I left.

The soldiers related to this thread have initiated court action to challenge this, nothing wrong with that, this isn’t a war, the CAF is exactly where it is today because too many people shut up and do/say nothing.

That's true, except that the merits of their complaint is so clearly unwarranted and shows they aren't willing to embrace the ethos required to be a member of the profession of arms, and I will judge them accordingly.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That literally has zero relevance to the argument. You continue to want to argue the merits of the decision rather than the concept of unlimited liability. Like I said, if you can tell me why unlimited liability does not apply, I'm all ears. But as long as you want to argue that the merits of the decision factors into the equation I could not care less, as the requirement for soldier's to adhere to unlimited liability makes the balance of risk/benefits a secondary, trivial discussion.



1) Are you making an argument that this an unlawful command?

2) No one is telling good people to leave. They're telling people who don't understand unlimited liability to leave.... understanding and honouring the concept of unlimited liability is a pretty important piece to being one of the good soldiers and not one of the shitty ones.



Look I'm more than willing to hate on the CAF for keeping shitty people around and causing good people to leave as a result, I just don't see how that is applicable here. There is nothing that indicates that people who don't want the vaccination are primarily good, anecdotally a lot of people might tell you that there's a lot of bad apples getting booted out because of this.... to which I just point out the weak leadership that must have existed if they weren't already booted out, but that's neither here nor there.



They're subject to unlimited liability anytime they are on duty... unlimited liability is part of the ethos and found as a "fundamental belief and expectation." It is codified in law by "lawful authority," NDA offences for not following lawful authority, etc.

However, this is the best nuance brought forward yet. Theoretically, a reservist who just doesn't parade while this is a requirement would technically not be violating any lawful orders (albeit they'd be on NES).

Which brings us back to "conditions of employment," for which employers are allowed to define as long as they are not discriminatory (on the grounds laid out in the Canadian Act) and anyone who doesn't meet those requirements can be terminated. No different for any employer/employee relationship and, just like everyone else who has employment conditions changed on them so that they no longer meet the requirements, should be eligible for EI benefits (notwithstanding the Minister inappropriately saying they won't be).


The only way that this could have been handled better, in my opinion, is:

1) Charge them under the NDA. The calculus in being too scared to take this to the SCC, I just don't get it. If it is an unconstitutional law, then we need to know anyway, "though the heavens fall."

2) Offering an expedited 4(c) release before going into remedial measures and a 5(f) release probably would have been more ideal.

Mea culpa! I was discussing Leadership and Orders in a general sense not really in the veil of COVID.

 

[OldSolduer]

When I was an infantry section commander I could order number three rifleman to take a bound to draw enemy fire. That may cause the number three rifleman to die. But you cannot order a soldier to get vaccinated?

Some folks need to get a friggin grip on reality.

 

[Remius]

When I was an infantry section commander I could order number three rifleman to take a bound to draw enemy fire. That may cause the number three rifleman to die. But you cannot order a soldier to get vaccinated?

Some folks need to get a friggin grip on reality.

You would face a grievance if you did that without a GBA+ analysis before you initiated that order.

Is no3 rifleperson in an under represented group? If not, did you try to find one? If so why are they not taking the bound to draw fire?

 

[FJAG]

When I was an infantry section commander I could order number three rifleman to take a bound to draw enemy fire. That may cause the number three rifleman to die. But you cannot order a soldier to get vaccinated?

Some folks need to get a friggin grip on reality.

That's my argument about a system that does not trust COs and company commanders to do summary trials about relatively minor infractions.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Though the order and reasons made by Justice Fuhrer has not yet been posted to the Federal Court website, I requested a copy (it's an easy and quick process) and attach it here for any interested in reading it. (33 pages PDF)

And of note

V. Conclusion
[75] For all the foregoing reasons, I dismiss the Applicants’ motions for a temporary or interlocutory injunction to restrain the enforcement of any directive regarding a vaccine mandate, pending the outcome of their JR Applications.

It appears that the Judicial Review is still to be decided.

 

[FJAG]

Though the order and reasons made by Justice Fuhrer has not yet been posted to the Federal Court website, I requested a copy (it's an easy and quick process) and attach it here for any interested in reading it. (33 pages PDF)

Thanks for that. An interesting read. They pretty well failed to meet each and every condition necessary for an interlocutory injunction.

Paras 43 to 46 are quite telling.

The balance of convenience test is nicely summed up in this part:

I find that the balance of convenience favours maintaining the CAF Vaccination Policy for the public good and militates against granting the requested injunction. As mentioned above, the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that their interests outweigh the public interest in ensuring the readiness, health and safety of the Forces, the Defence Team, and the vulnerable groups they may be called on to serve, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

[babish88]

Sounds like eradicating Covid-19 may be possible.

What Will It Take to Eradicate COVID-19?

A group of New Zealand researchers say we shouldn’t rule out the “possibility of eradicating” COVID-19 from the world.

www.healthline.com

I keep seeing this message be conveyed, that it is possible to eradicate covid, this message coming from the same people who claim to follow/trust the science.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I actually have a base surg(head doc on a base) on tape saying that no medical professional believes that is possible, that we will have to learn to live with it.
But people like this can continue hocking this notion that "if only those racist, misogynist, selfish unvacced would do their part and get the jab, then we could eradicate it and go back to normal!"
And that doesn't get censored for being mis/disinformation?

I also keep seeing the notion that we should only trust peer reviewed studies, as if that's the gold standard, that those involved in it have no bias what so ever.

The University of East Anglia in the UK did peer reviewed studies showing how climate change was humans fault etc.
Then their emails got hacked back in 2009 and it was discovered that they misrepresented their findings to achieve their political goals.
So much for the gold standard of peer reviewed studies.
Everyone has a political bias, it would be nice if they acted in a way that was neutral but they don't, they want you to think they do.

 

[kev994]

I keep seeing this message be conveyed, that it is possible to eradicate covid, this message coming from the same people who claim to follow/trust the science.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I actually have a base surg(head doc on a base) on tape saying that no medical professional believes that is possible, that we will have to learn to live with it.
But people like this can continue hocking this notion that "if only those racist, misogynist, selfish unvacced would do their part and get the jab, then we could eradicate it and go back to normal!"
And that doesn't get censored for being mis/disinformation?

I also keep seeing the notion that we should only trust peer reviewed studies, as if that's the gold standard, that those involved in it have no bias what so ever.

The University of East Anglia in the UK did peer reviewed studies showing how climate change was humans fault etc.
Then their emails got hacked back in 2009 and it was discovered that they misrepresented their findings to achieve their political goals.
So much for the gold standard of peer reviewed studies.
Everyone has a political bias, it would be nice if they acted in a way that was neutral but they don't, they want you to think they do.

Fact Check seems to think that this scandal doesn’t mean what you’re implying that it means.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I actually have a base surg(head doc on a base) on tape

How did that come about?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How did that come about?

Can you record conversations in Canada?​

Canada follows the one-party consent rule according to section 148 of the criminal code. Therefore, in Canada, recording private conversations is legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording.

So if two participants are involved in a call, one of the participants can record the call without informing the other of the recording. The same applies when more than two participants are involved in a conversation, only consent from one party is required.

When they speak of is legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording, that means the person speaking to the doctor is a participant and can record the conversation, without the doctors knowledge.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can you record conversations in Canada?​

Canada follows the one-party consent rule according to section 148 of the criminal code. Therefore, in Canada, recording private conversations is legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording.

So if two participants are involved in a call, one of the participants can record the call without informing the other of the recording. The same applies when more than two participants are involved in a conversation, only consent from one party is required.

When they speak of is legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording, that means the person speaking to the doctor is a participant and can record the conversation, without the doctors knowledge.

I'm curious about the context of someone recording the BSurg talking about covid that's all.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There was a time, when I was an Inspector, that I would start the recorder the minute I arrived at a premise and recorded every word said during the inspection. Whether Joe the Welder or the CEO of one of the largest Asian manufacturers of wind turbines in Canada. It's pretty amazing watching them change their tunes and try backpedal when they find out they were recorded.

Perhaps someone was just cognizant of the law and decided to take advantage of it?

 

[Good2Golf]

In any conversation, one should assume they are being recorded.

 

[brihard]

Purely for the sake of discussion, S.184 isn’t a ‘right to record’, per se; it carves out a ‘one party consent’ exception to the criminal offense of ‘interception of private communications’. It means that if a party to a private communication consents to in being recorded, they or another person recording on that basis aren’t committing an offense under the Criminal Code.

Video or audio recording can still be a prohibited activity on any private property, subjecting a person to liability for trespass if they do so.

Also potentially relevant is S.21 of the Defence Controlled Access Area regulations:

Except with the prior consent of a designated authority, no person shall bring into or have on any controlled access area any photographic equipment or any recording or transmitting device, whether such device records or transmits images, sounds, data or other information of any type whatsoever.

Now, that crashes into reality pretty hard in the era of smart phones… In any case, I mention these things only so nobody walks away thinking that section of the Criminal Code necessarily gives they a free and clear to record if and when they like. There’s more law that touches on the subject. Individual circumstances may vary.

 

[babish88]

I'm curious about the context of someone recording the BSurg talking about covid that's all.

I'm laughing at all these replies about the subject of how I have this, but none of the fact that your premise of "we can eradicate covid if only 100% of people get vaccinated" is wrong, as per a MO, not reddit/twitter etc where you's heard the opposite.

Oh but I'm uneducated and anti-science.
How long ago did the army stop teaching critical thinking?

 

[brihard]

I'm laughing at all these replies about the subject of how I have this, but none of the fact that your premise of "we can eradicate covid if only 100% of people get vaccinated" is wrong, as per a MO, not reddit/twitter etc where you's heard the opposite.

Oh but I'm uneducated and anti-science.
How long ago did the army stop teaching critical thinking?

Not sure where you get the impression that literally anyone here thinks COVID will be completely eliminated, so you’ve revived a thread to tilt at windmills. I’ve not seen anyone on this forum express those views. If you read through this and other COVID threads, you’ll come to see that.

If you aren’t vaccinated and aren’t willing to be, that’s completey your right. I’m sure you’ll find other gainful employment opportunities elsewhere if you’re one of the CAF members in this position.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm laughing at all these replies about the subject of how I have this, but none of the fact that your premise of "we can eradicate covid if only 100% of people get vaccinated" is wrong, as per a MO, not reddit/twitter etc where you's heard the opposite.

Oh but I'm uneducated and anti-science.
How long ago did the army stop teaching critical thinking?

Because all of us are smarter then to think your MO is some kind of all seeing/ all knowing God?

Talk about "critical thinking".

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm laughing at all these replies about the subject of how I have this, but none of the fact that your premise of "we can eradicate covid if only 100% of people get vaccinated" is wrong, as per a MO, not reddit/twitter etc where you's heard the opposite.

Oh but I'm uneducated and anti-science.
How long ago did the army stop teaching critical thinking?

A few minutes before they taught deflection would be my guess.