# How are civilians legally requried to address members of the CF



## wakingheart (19 Jun 2008)

This question is purely from a legal standpoint with out taking into account social context, how are civilians legally required to address members of the Canadian Forces?


----------



## Loachman (19 Jun 2008)

They are not.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (19 Jun 2008)

''Excuse me sir''

''Hey you''

''Oi d**khead''



....or variations thereof.


Why would members of the CF be addressed any differently than joe civvy?


----------



## Jorkapp (19 Jun 2008)

Politely, I would assume.


----------



## X Royal (19 Jun 2008)

From a purely legal standpoint any bloody old way they feel like.
At times common sense may dictate a civil greeting.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 Jun 2008)

wakingheart said:
			
		

> This question is purely from a legal standpoint with out taking into account social context, how are civilians legally required to address members of the Canadian Forces?



This may be the closest thing to any government regulation concerning civilians addressing Canadian Forces members.


----------



## wakingheart (19 Jun 2008)

Honestly I am surprised and conflicted. We have legal titles for members of parliament I expected the same for Professional Military Officers given our commonwealth past.


----------



## Loachman (19 Jun 2008)

wakingheart said:
			
		

> We have legal titles for members of parliament



Yes, but nobody is legally required to use them, nor any other form of address.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 Jun 2008)

There are legal titles for members of the military.  They are called "ranks".  However, just as is the case with titles for Members of Parliament, the judiciary, the Governor General, or members of the Royal Family, no civilian is legally obligated to use those titles when addressing the holder of that office.


----------



## wakingheart (19 Jun 2008)

Hmm...Interesting I had always though the though that the titles where mandatory for formal correspondence.


----------



## medaid (19 Jun 2008)

wakingheart said:
			
		

> Honestly I am surprised and conflicted. We have legal titles for members of parliament I expected the same for Professional Military Officers given our commonwealth past.



i.e. The Honorable Captain John Bloggins, 2nd Battalion Princes Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry 

or 

The Most Honorable Captain James Bloggins, Her Majesty's Canadian Ship Horatio ?


----------



## Haggis (19 Jun 2008)

From working at NDHQ, this has become a personal peeve of mine.  Too often I see official documents, briefs, e-mails etc. drafted and circulated by civilians that refer to CF members by thier given and surnames, with no reference to the rank (I have been so noted in offical project documentation).  Converesly, those same documents will refer to senior civilians as "Mr./Mrs./Madame" etc.

A civilian male grows into the title of "Mister", a lady becomes a "Miss" or "Ms" and adopts, through marriage, the title "Mrs." or "Madame".

But CF members earn their rank through sweat, hard work and, sometimes, blood.  Concordantly, I now refuse to action documentation that does not properly address CF members by thier earned rank.  I send it back to the originators with a request for correction.


----------



## medaid (19 Jun 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> But CF members earn their rank through sweat, hard work and, sometimes, blood.  Concordantly, I now refuse to action documentation that does not properly address CF members by thier earned rank.  I send it back to the originators with a request for correction.



GUTS!  ;D


----------



## wakingheart (19 Jun 2008)

> But CF members earn their rank through sweat, hard work and, sometimes, blood.  Concordantly, I now refuse to action documentation that does not properly address CF members by thier earned rank.  I send it back to the originators with a request for correction.



This seems to be an argument for having a legal basis for a law requiring civilians to address CF members formally.

The interaction of civilian and military society are interesting and definitely a relevant subject. Political maneuvering seemingly meddles with military affairs at times in spite of its decrement of legitimate military organization. However I have no real experience in these matters but would be interested in the advise of those who do. This is more academic guess but do you know of any article, study or book that you would recommend on this tension?

Has anyone read Just and Unjust Wars?


----------



## wakingheart (19 Jun 2008)

wakingheart said:
			
		

> This seems to be an argument for having a legal basis for a law requiring civilians to address CF members formally.
> 
> The interaction of civilian and military society are interesting and definitely a relevant subject. Political maneuvering seemingly meddles with military affairs at times in spite of its decrement of legitimate military organization. However I have no real experience in these matters but would be interested in the advise of those who do. This is more academic I guess but do any of you know of any article, study or book that you would recommend on this subject?


----------



## Loachman (19 Jun 2008)

wakingheart said:
			
		

> This seems to be an argument for having a legal basis for a law requiring civilians to address CF members formally.



Why? I would not wish to live in such a society.

I am not Royalty, nor societally any way better than anybody else.


----------



## wakingheart (19 Jun 2008)

> Why? I would not wish to live in such a society.
> 
> I am not Royalty, nor societally any way better than anybody else.



I said it was an argument...not a good one.


----------



## Fusaki (19 Jun 2008)

> This seems to be an argument for having a legal basis for a law requiring civilians to address CF members formally.



Something tells me that if I tried to have my girlfriend address me as "Corporal", she might respond with other - much less pleasant - forms of address instead. It's always amazed me how many curse words a french girl can string together in a single breath...


----------



## scoutfinch (19 Jun 2008)

I hear ya... getting my husband to call me ma'am would take more than an act of Parliament.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (19 Jun 2008)

Actually I always answer to my husband "yes, Sir" and "yes, your majesty" and it drives him nuts....he HATES it.  So, that is why I have continued to do it through out our almost 14 yr marriage!!!!!! >  Ya I'm bad


----------



## NovaScotiaNewfie (19 Jun 2008)

LOL oddly enough I hate to be called Sir..makes me feel old..so I say if I want to be called Sir I would rejoin the Reserves for put in for the Reg Force and try to go DEO to get a comission. I would rather be called by my first name. Don't care if I'm ever called Sir..


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Jun 2008)

wakingheart said:
			
		

> I said it was an argument...not a good one.



Yep, it's an argument, and it's not a good one, so let's finish this.

I'm with Loachman,  I do not want any "special" form of address.

Just call me Moe!!


----------



## wakingheart (19 Jun 2008)

Hey Moe


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Jun 2008)

Hey whatever your name is!!    Okay, wakingheart!


----------



## larry Strong (19 Jun 2008)

You might want to ask yourself...how many civvies know the rank structure and what the correct terminology is for a specific rank.

Damn just notice, my post count is the sign of the devil.


----------



## LightHammer (20 Jun 2008)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> You might want to ask yourself...how many civvies know the rank structure and what the correct terminology is for a specific rank.



Yup that pretty much just sums it up. When I first started my application I had no idea how to address the recruiters seeing as I had no idea how the structure worked, and still to this day its still a little muddy.


----------



## EW (20 Jun 2008)

Let's not confuse protocol with lawful requirements.  Yes rank is important, structured authority is important, and it all ties into respect - which is sadly lacking in the civilian world - but how far do you want to take it.  I can't believe the 'signature block creep' that I see with the civvies and ex-military.  Some people include every degree they have, it started with a few doctors who had their PhD, and then spread to the professional engineers, and then the ex military folks (MMM, CD, etc, etc) to everyone with a basic degree including the full list after their signature, on the most informal inter-office correspondence.  Give me a break.  I've got a few that the GG says I can use after my name, but I'll save it for letters to my MP, or other such 'formal' matters.  Same as the rank (outside of military circles).

I'm sure that many on these boards remember the wives wearing their husbands rank.  Who wants to see that in wives/husbands today - to the extent that it used to be.

As for the example of returning mail that doesn't include rank - good way to make a point, and I don't fault that - so long as there was nothing that was actually time-sensitive that got 'returned to sender' because you wanted to make a point to the civilian originator.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Jun 2008)

And considering most civillians would not be able to tell the difference between for an example a Major and a Lieutenant Commander I don't see why they should be expected to address military personnel in a formal fashion.


----------



## Haggis (20 Jun 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> And considering most civillians would not be able to tell the difference between for an example a Major and a Lieutenant Commander I don't see why they should be expected to address military personnel in a formal fashion.



However, in reference to my earlier rant, those who work in and for DND and the CF should know the rank structure and use it in official documentation.  I know of one civilian employee who steadfastly refuses to even acknowledge the rank of anyone below Colonel.  That is becasue she, as an AS-05, sees herself as the professional peer of LCols and superior to those below.

I manage a mixed military and civilian team.  Within the team I allow my civilians to call me by my given name.  Not so, however, for my CF subordinates.  Even so, in all correspondence which may leave my team (e-mails, briefing notes etc.), I insist and expect that my CF members will be addressed by thier ranks and surnames or positions and my civilains by Mr/Mrs./Ms/Madame or positions.


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (20 Jun 2008)

From what I have seen here, just a shuttle away from NDHQ, most civies tend to refer all CF personnel as "Sir/Mam" whether they are Privates or Generals simply because they don't know. They are given copies of the rank structure and are advised to become familiar with it, but it rarely happens. It becomes more interesting when you work with some of them both in the Reserves and at DND.


----------



## medaid (20 Jun 2008)

Ah, Haggis don't you just LOVE thos assimilated "ranks"? What's important for them to know is that no matter what their "rank" is they're still a civilian, and if they so chose to join the CF, they're still a Pte(r) or an OCdt first.


----------



## scoutfinch (20 Jun 2008)

You clearly have never been exposed to DND (vice the CF).  For example, the *Director* of CDI is a civilian. She is THE boss... not _just_ a civilian.


----------



## medaid (20 Jun 2008)

True that Scout, the civies I've been exposed to are quite pleasant  maybe it's because they're quite removed from the throan of power ;D


----------



## scoutfinch (20 Jun 2008)

I am not talking about whether civilians are pleasant to work with.  Frankly, so long as they do their job I don't care if they are pleasant or otherwise.  

My point is that while there may be many civilian employees of DND and/or the CF, there are many highly qualified civilians working for DND that operate at an executive level.  They aren't _just _ civilians, they are executive level bureaucrats working for DND.  To suggest that civilians should 'know their place' because they don't wear a uniform sounds a little silly.

For example, I don't think anyone would call Ward Elcock _just_ a civilian -- despite the fact that he doesn't have a rank because he is _just_ a 'civy'... a civilian who just so happens to be the DM.  I'd also like to see someone try to put him in "his place."


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Jun 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> You clearly have never been exposed to DND (vice the CF).  For example, the *Director* of CDI is a civilian. She is THE boss... not _just_ a civilian.



A quick intervention to point out that this is not correct.  Chief of Defence Intelligence is MGen MacDonald.  The civilian you're referring to is Director General, Intelligence Production - who works for CDI.  There are other senior civilians within CDI, but the ultimate boss is military.


----------



## scoutfinch (20 Jun 2008)

Point taken.  I short circuited my explanation and ultimately mis-stated what I meant.   Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Haggis (20 Jun 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Ah, Haggis don't you just LOVE thos assimilated "ranks"? What's important for them to know is that no matter what their "rank" is they're still a civilian, and if they so chose to join the CF, they're still a Pte(r) or an OCdt first.



Many civilians in the DND do, in fact, have authority over CF members, but only to a point.    My immediate supervisor is a civilian, so is hers and hers is the ADM, also a civilian.  I address my boss by her given name, at her request, but only in unoffcial dealings.  My Director and DG and ADM all get a "ma'am" out of me, regardless of the context of our e-mails, meetings etc.


----------



## simysmom99 (20 Jun 2008)

I think this speaks well to the lack of respect in the workplace these days.  Both from military to civvie and vice versa.  At the end of the day, politeness should reign and formality should be adhered to unless otherwise directed.  I will always call someone in the military that I do not personally know by Sir/Mame.  I can read rank just fine, but IMO being polite should always be the standard.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Jun 2008)

Thought I'd pipe up on this one.

Here in Australia, on only a few occasions, I have been addressed as a war criminal, and a baby killer by civvies at large on the outside. I did not even raise an eyebrow, so if one is abused, just carry on and ignore it. However I do look at them in the eye. Fair dinkum!

On the other hand I have hand many thank me for my service, and especially if they recognise my medals from Iraq. Some civvies are actually quite switched on, and many are former members themselves. 

The civvies within Defence, I know and work with (about 7 or 8 of them), address me by my Christian name. Other Defence Civilians will usually address me either my Sergeant or Mate.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jun 2008)

A polite "Sir" or "Mame" (for our female members) is acceptable, even if it is a little gratting for 'working folks'.   ;D

"General", as I was addressed last night, is getting to be a little on the "insulting side".


----------



## exgunnertdo (21 Jun 2008)

Ironically - where I work, some of the civilians are more hung up on their "ranks" than us uniform-wearing folk.  Example - (forgive me if I flub the details, PS rank structure confuses me).  PG-5 has an ENG-4 working for him, but the ENG-4 says that they're the same "rank" and therefore shouldn't be working "for" him.  ARGHHH!  Just get the job done, already, who cares?


----------



## armyvern (23 Jun 2008)

[Insert Random Name] said:
			
		

> I just end up calling everyone sir/ma'am and hope I don't get into trouble for it.  ;D



And, when you call us Sir or Ma'am undeservedly, -- we'll correct you and usually follow it up with "you can call me [whatever]".


----------



## CountDC (27 Jun 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> From working at NDHQ, this has become a personal peeve of mine.  Too often I see official documents, briefs, e-mails etc. drafted and circulated by civilians that refer to CF members by thier given and surnames, with no reference to the rank (I have been so noted in offical project documentation).  Converesly, those same documents will refer to senior civilians as "Mr./Mrs./Madame" etc.
> 
> A civilian male grows into the title of "Mister", a lady becomes a "Miss" or "Ms" and adopts, through marriage, the title "Mrs." or "Madame".
> 
> But CF members earn their rank through sweat, hard work and, sometimes, blood.  Concordantly, I now refuse to action documentation that does not properly address CF members by thier earned rank.  I send it back to the originators with a request for correction.



Good for you - exactly what everyone should do.


----------



## CountDC (27 Jun 2008)

EW said:
			
		

> I'm sure that many on these boards remember the wives wearing their husbands rank.  Who wants to see that in wives/husbands today - to the extent that it used to be.



shudder - still bad enough sometimes as it is - please don't bring back those times.


----------



## Emenince Grise (29 Jun 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Many civilians in the DND do, in fact, have authority over CF members, but only to a point.    My immediate supervisor is a civilian, so is hers and hers is the ADM, also a civilian.  I address my boss by her given name, at her request, but only in unoffcial dealings.  My Director and DG and ADM all get a "ma'am" out of me, regardless of the context of our e-mails, meetings etc.



Interesting. Context is everything. When I'm working on base (I'm a civilian) I address CF members by rank (Private, Captain, Colonel, etc). They, in turn, address me by my position (Padre). The members I know more personally I call by first name and they, mine. If it is a private (I meet a lot of those) I usually use the last name at the first instance. 

In civilian life I would be addressed by my honourific at the first instance (Rev. Bloggins) and as Mr. at the second and subsequent instances.


----------

