• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
159
Points
460
I just saw the post on social media about the army plan about giving the vaccine to the troops.

can a soldier refuse the vaccine? Or refuse any other medical treatment or vaccine?

I ask here because it is not news worthy and I did not want to take away from more important questions.

I always followed the advice of the medical staff while in uniform. Advice=Order?
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
860
Points
1,260
can a soldier refuse the vaccine?
QUOTE

Like other vaccines provided to CAF members, the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandatory; this remains a voluntary option for all. Whether or not a vaccine will be made a requirement for an operation or a position is a decision to be made by operational commanders, in consultation with their medical advisors. However, CAF members may require proof of a COVID-19 vaccination in order to operate in certain high-risk environments or with vulnerable populations.

END QUOTE
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,402
Points
1,160
QUOTE

Like other vaccines provided to CAF members, the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandatory; this remains a voluntary option for all. Whether or not a vaccine will be made a requirement for an operation or a position is a decision to be made by operational commanders, in consultation with their medical advisors. However, CAF members may require proof of a COVID-19 vaccination in order to operate in certain high-risk environments or with vulnerable populations.

END QUOTE
To put it in armyese; career going fine, career going fine... career stops! Insufficient immunizations! 😁
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
842
Points
940
Keep in mind that even if a particular OP does not require the vaccine, some countries that people may travel to (for third location LTA) may require it for entrance (similar to yellow fever). Last time I was in Afghanistan, the uptake for the flu shot was very good as people were headed out for LTA to countries that had made it an entrance requirement.
 

cmdj1982

Guest
Reaction score
3
Points
130
We've all been told since BM(O)Q that we are allowed to disobey unethical/unlawful orders. Would someone be able to point me in the right direction for which Regs/Orders the guidelines for doing so fall under?

QR&O?
DAOD?

Just wanting to better understand what qualifies as such, what actions I can take, and what protections are offered to a person who challenges their superior in such a way.

Thanks for any/all help :)
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,865
Points
1,140
As per QR&O 19.015 and 19.02

"19.015 - LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS​

Every officer and non-commissioned member shall obey lawful commands and orders of a superior officer.

NOTES​

(A) The expression "superior officer" includes a non-commissioned member. (See article 1.02 - Definitions.)
(B) Usually there will be no doubt as to whether a command or order is lawful or unlawful. In a situation, however, where the subordinate does not know the law or is uncertain of it he shall, even though he doubts the lawfulness of the command, obey unless the command is manifestly unlawful.
(C) An officer or non-commissioned member is not justified in obeying a command or order that is manifestly unlawful. In other words, if a subordinate commits a crime in complying with a command that is manifestly unlawful, he is liable to be punished for the crime by a civil or military court. A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal; for example, a command by an officer or non-commissioned member to shoot a member for only having used disrespectful words or a command to shoot an unarmed child.
(D) With respect to riots, subsection 32(2) of the Criminal Code (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter C-46) states:
"32. (2) Every one who is bound by military law to obey the command of his superior officer is justified in obeying any command given by his superior officer for the suppression of a riot unless the order is manifestly unlawful."
(C)

19.02 - CONFLICTING LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS​

(1) If an officer or non-commissioned member receives a lawful command or order that he considers to be in conflict with a previous lawful command or order received by him, he shall orally point out the conflict to the superior officer who gave the later command or order.
(2) If the superior officer still directs the officer or non-commissioned member to obey the later command or order, he shall do so.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,021
Points
1,040
Just to take what Haggis said a step further, note that there is nothing here about "ethical" orders just "lawful" or "unlawful" orders. Note as well the justification to refuse the "unlawful order" only occurs when the order is "manifestly unlawful". There is no legislation respecting "ethical" or "unethical" orders.

It's possible that an "unethical" order may also be a " manifestly unlawful" order but that's a question of fact in the circumstances.

"Manifestly unlawful" has been defined by the Canadian Supreme Court in Finta as being:

As Justice Cory explained in Finta, “manifestly unlawful” is an order that “offends the conscience of every reasonable, right thinking person; it must be an order which is obviously and flagrantly wrong. The order cannot be in a grey area or be merely questionable; rather it must patently and obviously be wrong.” The determination of “manifestly unlawful” is as stated in subsection (5) a question of law.

🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,756
Points
1,060
Just a point of philosophy: every individual is morally entitled to refuse an order on grounds of personal conscience. Having said that, every individual that does so needs to be aware that there will be consequences. The best of the objectors accept the consequences.

Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali is a personal hero. There are a lot like him.

On the other hand I have little time for people who plead their conscience but expect to be excused consequences.
 

Kilted

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
626
Points
990
When was the last time that someone was charged for giving an unlawful order.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
9,856
Points
1,090
Likely somewhere in the court martials of L'Abbe, Seward, Boland, Matchee, Brocklebank and Brown.

Unfortunately, the Chief Military Judge web sites (DWAN and public facing) do not include many older court martials; you can see some of the follow-on work at the Court Martial Appeal Court.

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,930
Points
1,160
Just a point of philosophy: every individual is morally entitled to refuse an order on grounds of personal conscience. Having said that, every individual that does so needs to be aware that there will be consequences. The best of the objectors accept the consequences.

Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali is a personal hero. There are a lot like him.

On the other hand I have little time for people who plead their conscience but expect to be excused consequences.
My Grandfather was a Consciousness Objector in WWI, instead of a gun he became a stretcher bearer to help his friends. that took guts.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,865
Points
1,140
Likely somewhere in the court martials of L'Abbe, Seward, Boland, Matchee, Brocklebank and Brown.

Unfortunately, the Chief Military Judge web sites (DWAN and public facing) do not include many older court martials; you can see some of the follow-on work at the Court Martial Appeal Court.

I don't recall Labbé being charged with anything, but his subordinate, LCol Mathieu, was charged with Negligent Performance of a Military Duty for stepping outside the ROE by ordering his troops to shoot fleeing looters. He was acquitted during two courts martial.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,021
Points
1,040
Seward negligent performance of military duty as well. Convicted. 3 months imprisonment. Dismissed from CAF.

🍻
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
9,856
Points
1,090
Seward was sentenced, by a jury of his peers (old court martial rules had the panel determine guilt and set sentence) to a severe reprimand. Civilian judges, in appeal, jailed him and tossed him from the military.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
842
Points
940
Why do I have the feeling this has to do with vaccination? :unsure:
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
9,856
Points
1,090
Refusing vaccination is another, distinct charge under the NDA.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
7,254
Points
1,110
Refusing vaccination is another, distinct charge under the NDA.
And CAF isn't ordering COVID vaccinations anyway.

It would be helpful if the OP could give us an example of precisely what sort of order they have concerns about.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,865
Points
1,140
Refusing vaccination is another, distinct charge under the NDA.
NDA 126/QR&O 103.58 is an interesting section. The "Notes" state (emphasis is mine):

"(A) No authority exists whereby a person can be forced actually to undergo inoculation, etc., although he can be ordered to submit himself to such a procedure. Failure of a person to submit to inoculation. etc., in spite of an order requiring him to do so, would constitute an offence on his part. “Reasonable excuse” is a defence to a charge under section 126 of the National Defence Act. (5 June 2008)

(B) Persons who refuse to submit to inoculation, etc., who are able to prove sincere conviction on the ground of religious belief or other scruple should not be charged under section 126 of the National Defence Act. The main purpose of the section is to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces will not evade important service by refusing to submit to inoculation, etc., when failure to be inoculated would mean that they could not be sent on duty to a particular area.

(C) The word “wilfully” in section 126 of the National Defence Act signifies that the alleged offender knew what he was doing, intended to do what he did and was not acting under compulsion.

The story of Sgt (ret'd Mike Kipling shows another side of this as he refused the anthrax vaccine believing this specific vaccine was unsafe. The Judge agreed with him and his charges were stayed. Interestingly, he was already deployed into an SDA when he was ordered to submit to the vaccination.
 
Top