COVID vaccine mass law tort?

[Haggis]

I've received a copy of the statement of claim. The Federal Court's registry is very quick in responding to requests. It's a bit of a slog to get through (137 pages) and (in my uneducated opinion) very poorly written.

Well, that was certainly a challenge to read and stay awake. There's a few names I know in there and some are surprising.

 

[brihard]

Got a link for that SCC decision on vaccine mandates? And your reference to Jordan (addressing time delays from charge to trial) is irrelevant.

I don’t believe he was referring to Jordan specifically in the sense of undue delay would impact proceedings in civil matters (although the acceleration of criminal matters due to Jordan has cause civil to backlog even further). What I took that as is that the SC has shown itself willing to make a tremendously imp truck decision that kicks a whole pillar of the legal system right in the nards, and wasn’t concerned with either the political or public blowback of that decision- “this is a violation of Charter rights and we’ll toss cases; governments, figure it out”

So, if the SCC were persuaded by argument that any given vaccine mandate were illegal, I don’t believe they would hesitate to rule that way. The SCC is not at all beholden to the government of the day.

 

[QV]

The fact that natural immunity continues to be completely ignored and only these EUA vaccines recognized as the single savior from severe outcomes demonstrates one side is ignoring science and experts. Mandating vaccines on that premise while ignoring half of the experts is a flawed approach. Considering mandates represent such an invasive violation of individual rights to those opposed to it, they should be smacked down.

If the vaccine was wholly safe and effective also prevented transmission and natural immunity didn't exist, then sure mandate away.

But ultimately these vaccines are not terribly effective, are very harmful to a small subset of society, and only very beneficial to another small subset of society. This situation does not merit mandates nor justify the invasive violation of individual rights and freedoms that the mandates impose.

 

[QV]

Well, that was certainly a challenge to read and stay awake. There's a few names I know in there and some are surprising.

How do you feel about those service members who are now suffering from vaccine injuries due to this vaccine? Fuck 'em, they had a choice?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

How do you feel about those service members who are now suffering from vaccine injuries due to this vaccine? Fuck 'em, they had a choice?

Oh my,.......what a line to throw out there. "OMG, somebody think of the children!"

Its no wonder so many folks have you on 'ignore", try and discuss without insulting folks, will ya'?

 

[QV]

I don't see an insult in that comment. I posed a question.

But joke all you want Bruce. There are CAF members (and many others in our society) who felt forced or under financial/social duress to get these vaccines and are now suffering medically for the rest of their life from that. If we don't even look at this, address it in some way, rethink what we did, then we are not the society we claim to be.

 

[Fabius]

No matter the legal arguments and how well written or not the Statement of Claim is it is interesting to read the members accounts.
While I am sure the Chain of Command and the members experienced the events differently and the truth is likely somewhere in the middle, in reading the accounts I am not convinced the CAF handled, what is and was a very divisive issue not just for the CAF but for Canadian society, very well.

The how and why it unfolded the way it did can be explored but I would not necessarily consider the institution's handling of the situation as the model to follow.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

No matter the legal arguments and how well written or not the Statement of Claim is it is interesting to read the members accounts.
While I am sure the Chain of Command and the members experienced the events differently and the truth is likely somewhere in the middle, in reading the accounts I am not convinced the CAF handled, what is and was a very divisive issue not just for the CAF but for Canadian society, very well.

The how and why it unfolded the way it did can be explored but I would not necessarily consider the institution's handling of the situation as the model to follow.

Well hopefully its another 100 years before we need to worry about it again....

 

[brihard]

No matter the legal arguments and how well written or not the Statement of Claim is it is interesting to read the members accounts.
While I am sure the Chain of Command and the members experienced the events differently and the truth is likely somewhere in the middle, in reading the accounts I am not convinced the CAF handled, what is and was a very divisive issue not just for the CAF but for Canadian society, very well.

The how and why it unfolded the way it did can be explored but I would not necessarily consider the institution's handling of the situation as the model to follow.

I think we can all agree that there were aspects of enforcing the mandate that could have been handled better, and that there were cases where supervisors/managers let their own personal feelings play too much of a role in how they interacted with impacted CAF members. It’s unfortunate that this is likely going to be overshadowed and muffled by garbage legal work.

 

[mariomike]

Well hopefully its another 100 years before we need to worry about it again....

That's what we said after SARS-2....

When 436, myself included, of Toronto's 850 paramedics were put on Working Quarantine.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think we can all agree that there were aspects of enforcing the mandate that could have been handled better, and that there were cases where supervisors/managers let their own personal feelings play too much of a role in how they interacted with impacted CAF members. It’s unfortunate that this is likely going to be overshadowed and muffled by garbage legal work.

Encouraged on by a government that seemed to take pleasure in turning Canadians against each other and creating division and the manifestation of a sense of the "others" or "those people".

As said in another thread I am a CAF member who only took the jab(s) under the pressure and uncertainty of losing my job. There is no altruistic sense at all in my actions, nor belief in their efficacy. It was a pragmatic decision and on another field on another day I would have refused the jab(s) had circumstances been different.

And I believe I am a member of the silent majority.

 

[brihard]

Encouraged on by a government that seemed to take pleasure in turning Canadians against each other and creating division and the manifestation of a sense of the "others" or "those people".

As said in another thread I am a CAF member who only took the jab(s) under the pressure and uncertainty of losing my job. There is no altruistic sense at all in my actions, nor belief in their efficacy. It was a pragmatic decision and on another field on another day I would have refused the jab(s) had circumstances been different.

And I believe I am a member of the silent majority.

Given that the overwhelming majority of Canadians got vaccinated against COVID well before any mandates were in place, I’m no so convinced you’re part of a majority there. But nothing turns on that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Given that the overwhelming majority of Canadians got vaccinated against COVID well before any mandates were in place, I’m no so convinced you’re part of a majority there. But nothing turns on that.

I think you've overvalued the altruistic aspect and undervalued the pragmatic aspect.

I believe most just wanted to get on with their lives. And keep their jobs.

 

[brihard]

I think you've overvalued the altruistic aspect and undervalued the pragmatic aspect.

I believe most just wanted to get on with their lives. And keep their jobs.

My recollection is that a significant majority of the population was vaccinated well before any vaccine mandate was in effect or even on the table. That only came into play once vaccine uptake began to plateau.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

My recollection is that a significant majority of the population was vaccinated well before any vaccine mandate was in effect or even on the table. That only came into play once vaccine uptake began to plateau.

IIRC, the CAF was one of the first population sets to reach above 90% of pers 2 X dosed, well before mandates were a thing.

 

[Quirky]

I think you've overvalued the altruistic aspect and undervalued the pragmatic aspect.

I believe most just wanted to get on with their lives. And keep their jobs.

We were told the vaccines were effective against infection and spread too….

 

[Halifax Tar]

My recollection is that a significant majority of the population was vaccinated well before any vaccine mandate was in effect or even on the table. That only came into play once vaccine uptake began to plateau.

When one received is not what I'm questioning, it's the why.

Absolutely there was a rush to get the jab, like I said people wanted to get on with their lives. And we were led to believe all kinds of things about the jab, most of which were false, as we now know. Things like 1 shot, immunity and stopping the spread.

I'm also in the belief that people's view on on this is open to growth and change as information became available.

Either way, for me, it's about motives, not dates. The 'why'.

I could be wrong, perhaps the majority really believe in the jab and think it's a well designed and effective vaccine made by reputable and well intentioned big pharma companies and pushed by altruistic authority; and maybe they feel better having it. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

 

[Halifax Tar]

IIRC, the CAF was one of the first population sets to reach above 90% of pers 2 X dosed, well before mandates were a thing.

Hmmm maybe because we were mandated to as a service?

 

[Blackadder1916]

When one received is not what I'm questioning, it's the why.

Absolutely there was a rush to get the jab, like I said people wanted to get on with their lives. And we were led to believe all kinds of things about the jab, most of which were false, as we now know. Things like 1 shot, immunity and stopping the spread.

I'm also in the belief that people's view on on this is open to growth and change as information became available.

Either way, for me, it's about motives, not dates. The 'why'.

I could be wrong, perhaps the majority really believe in the jab and think it's a well designed and effective vaccine made by reputable and well intentioned big pharma companies and pushed by altruistic authority; and maybe they feel better having it. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

So, "Truthiness"

Definition of TRUTHINESS

a truthful or seemingly truthful quality that is claimed for something not because of supporting facts or evidence but because of a feeling that it is true or a desire for it to be true… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

. And we were led to believe all kinds of things about the jab, most of which were false, as we now know. Things like 1 shot, immunity and stopping the spread.

Well I was told no such thing.
I had never even had a flu shot before, but it was pretty obvious right from the start that this was different.

And, as working in the first building to completely shut down from covid, I had a front row seat to people having to take knees even halfway through a shift and get wheeled out.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/brampton-jail-closure-1.5538097

EDIT: and it ended up being way more then quoted in the article, this was just the start.