The National Defence Act Section 126 states that refusing vaccinations is an offence. The Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&Os) has notes regarding Section 126, and states:
“(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.” [emphasis ours]
(1) Section 126 of the National Defence Act provides:
“126. Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, revaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, willfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.”
(2) The statement of the offence in a charge under section 126 should be in the following form:
Sec. 126
N.D.A.
ON RECEIVING AN ORDER TO SUBMIT TO VACCINATION, WILFULLY AND WITHOUT REASONABLE EXCUSE DISOBEYED THE ORDER
Particulars: In that he, on (date), at (indicate place of offence), when ordered by (number, rank and name), to submit to vaccination against smallpox, did not do so.
(C)
(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.
(C) [5 June 2008]
Canada Military Drops Anthrax-Vaccine Court Martial
Canada: Soldiers have right to refuse anthrax vaccine – Last week, a military judge issues a precedent-setting ruling on individual rights. – “In the case of Sergeant Kipling, however, Colonel Brais ruled that the vaccination requirement infringes upon the serviceman’s right to life, as well as liberty and security of a person, as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision will be precedent-setting, and Kipling’s lawyer, Jay Prober, hailed it as ‘a very powerful decision in favor of human rights for the Canadian Forces.'”
Charge stayed as anthrax vaccine ruled unsafe – “Canada’s top military judge has stayed a charge of insubordination against a former air force sergeant who refused a dose of anthrax vaccine, ruling that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canada’s soldiers from being forced to take unsafe drugs. In a precedent-setting ruling sure to have wide-ranging ramifications for the military, the judge, Colonel Guy Brais, ruled that a batch of U.S.-produced vaccine injected into Canadian soldiers in Kuwait was ‘unsafe and hazardous,’ based on evidence disclosed during pretrial arguments. … But he noted that ‘the government . . . could never be justified to impose inoculation of soldiers with an unsafe and dangerous vaccine.’ When Sergeant Mike Kipling’s superiors ordered him to take the vaccine without his informed consent they infringed upon the serviceman’s right to life, liberty and security of person as enshrined in the Charter, the judge ruled. … Ottawa-based defence analyst Michel Drapeau, a lawyer and former military colonel, called the court ruling enlightened and precedent-setting. ‘The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has only been around since 1982 and the military code of discipline has been around for hundreds of years,’ Mr. Drapeau said. ‘But we are no longer in the age of gladiators. You need discipline in the military but only up to a point. We’ve seen that line drawn now. How ironic it is that the military, the very ones who are there to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, should be among the last to be confirmed with these rights.'”
Antivaccine advocates line up to support airman (pdf)
Anthrax Vaccine — posts by Meryl Nass, M.D.
VCC’s page on the Anthrax Vaccine
Vaccine Choice Canada’s Anthrax Vaccine Articles and Links
