# Whistleblower protection for RCMP but not for CF.



## McG (2 Jul 2005)

> *Parties differ about who needs protection*
> Whistle-blower laws to shield civil servants
> Calgary Herald
> (Printed: Edmonton Journal, 17 Jun 05)
> ...





> *Mounties to get whistleblower protection*
> Commons committee decides police need access to independent office
> GRANT ROBERTSON
> Calgary Herald
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Jul 2005)

Thats too bed for ****.
I think the FBI has whistle blower coverage so I see know reason why CSIS shouldn't.   For us as well I suppose.

_Don't need names outside the low ground_ rg


----------



## FastEddy (4 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Thats too bed for ****.
> I think the FBI has whistle blower coverage so I see know reason why CSIS shouldn't.   For us as well I suppose.
> 
> _Don't need names outside the low ground_ rg




Ahhh! yes, even though they are very usefull, they are still regarded with great
disdain. A snitch is still a snitch. Regardless of what ever High & Mighty reasons they have for betrayal.

And now you want to give anybody Carte Blanche to inform on his Comrades or Partners. There are
Agencies to ferret out Corruption or Incidents. Such protection and encouragement can only spawn
a total air of paranoia and mistrust among those whose very lives depend on that very Trust & Reliability.

If individuals wish to cleanse their souls of someones misdeeds, by all means let them. And then what
happens, happens.

Just truthfully answer this, If a Police Officer of your Station ratted out his Partner (for what ever reason),
then was assigned to you as your new Partner, yeah ! great feeling.


----------



## McG (4 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> And now you want to give anybody Carte Blanch to inform on his Comrades or Partners. There are Agencies to ferret out Corruption or Incidents. Such protection and encouragement can only spawn a total air of paranoia and mistrust among those whose very lives depend on that very Trust & Reliability.


So, you believe it is more important that police & service personnel can trust their peers & subordinates to hide their failures of ethics or their negligence to perform duties?

 . . . I suppose you would agree that any Liberal that knew of the ad-scam would have been right in not brining it public sooner?


----------



## FastEddy (4 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, you believe it is more important that police & service personnel can trust their peers & subordinates to hide their failures of ethics or their negligence to perform duties?
> 
> . . . I suppose you would agree that any Liberal that knew of the ad-scam would have been right in not brining it public sooner?




Well my ethical friend, just answer my question on the Partner issue, then I'll take up the Political
Correctness issue.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Just truthfully answer this, If a Police Officer of your Station ratted out his Partner (for what ever reason),
> then was assigned to you as your new Partner, yeah ! great feeling.





			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> Well my ethical friend, just answer my question on the Partner issue, then I'll take up the Political
> Correctness issue.



Generally, the answer to that question has been stated many times across the forums and in everyday life. "*If your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".*


----------



## KevinB (4 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Well my ethical friend, just answer my question on the Partner issue, then I'll take up the Political
> Correctness issue.



 :

 WTF, no wonder the MP's have such a stellar investigation record


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Jul 2005)

Quote from Fast Eddy,
_Just truthfully answer this, If a Police Officer of your Station ratted out his Partner (for what ever reason),
then was assigned to you as your new Partner, yeah ! great feeling._

Hey, I work in one of the most "solid" organizations there is and if "the reason" jepordized  the security of the institution, then ...tweeeeet!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Jul 2005)

Serpico.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :
> 
> WTF, no wonder the MP's have such a stellar investigation record



Yup! Gives me a new amount of respect for them too! :   No wonder they get such a lousy rep. They want us to trust them and they can't even trust themselves.

Way to go Fast Eddy, you've probably done more to damage your trade in two statements than all the snowcones have by writing tickets.


----------



## FastEddy (5 Jul 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yup! Gives me a new amount of respect for them too! :   No wonder they get such a lousy rep. They want us to trust them and they can't even trust themselves.
> 
> Way to go Fast Eddy, you've probably done more to damage your trade in two statements than all the snowcones have by writing tickets.




It never ceases to amaze me the amount of misinterpretation of quotes on this Forum at times. I've
noticed a tendency for people to reply, that seems to indicate they haven't read the quote, grasped
the single essence of it, read their own bias interpretation into it and at times use it to attack or take
cheapshots.

In this case, THE LEAGLIZATION - PROTECTION - ENCOURAGEMENT - REWARDING in my opinion would
be a bad idea, we fought a HOT War and a COLD War which embraced these principles, maybe if you had
lived under such events your views might be slightly different.

No where did I mention that the discovery of a Crime or Serious Breech of Wrong doing not be reported,
but if there are re-procussions, that is the course you have made, then play the course.
_
If you so wish to turn my question of New Partner around, you still haven't answered it, but I doubt if I
would get a truthfull reply anyway.

If you disagree with my opinion, buy all means do so, but this does not give you the License to incorporate
any other group or Branch of the Service

As for your remark implying that my opinion and comments should reflect on the whole of the
Military Police to substantiate your already poor regard of them. In this matter I would expect nothing less
than a Open Apology to this Branch of the Service.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2005)

Your the one that inferred no one would want to work with an ethical partner. You wear it. If the majority here think that's not what you meant, I'll stand corrected.


----------



## McG (5 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> No where did I mention that the discovery of a Crime or Serious Breech of Wrong doing not be reported,
> but if there are re-procussions, that is the course you have made, then play the course.


So, in your veiw, people should expose criminal activity, gross violations or morality, dangerous negligance, etc.  However, you also think it would be fair for their careers to be punished for bringing this forward?



			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> Just truthfully answer this, If a Police Officer of your Station ratted out his Partner (for what ever reason),
> then was assigned to you as your new Partner, yeah ! great feeling.


I'd find it easier to trust a wistleblower than the crook(s) that he made public.


----------



## KevinB (5 Jul 2005)

FastEddy - you will get no appology from me...


AND it appears I am not the only one that read it that way.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Jul 2005)

Were is the reward for whistle blowing.   Ridicule from your peers, disdain, threats.   For anyone to blow the whistle the offense would be large enough to risk the above and would also probably not be the first time offenses were committed.   Sometimes I think allowing an organization to police its own does more harm then good and airing out your dirty laundry for all to see can be a cleansing thing.   I'd rather be thought of as a rat who came home off the range in one piece then to let some clown high as a kite skate under the radar.

Hey Kev ever hear "I may not have the rank but I have the authority".   



Couldn't find the handle on a coffee cup.


----------



## KevinB (6 Jul 2005)

I notice MP's are fond of "don't confuse your rank with my authority..."   

 Wity 031 retort - Don't mistake your authority for rank...


----------



## FastEddy (6 Jul 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your the one that inferred no one would want to work with an ethical partner. You wear it. If the majority here think that's not what you meant, I'll stand corrected.




Since you are the only one with a reasonable comprehension of the substance of my objection to the
Legalization of Protection for Informants, I will do you the courtesy of clarifying my meanings and
remarks.

In the matter of "New Partner", I did not state that I would not work with him, but how would you feel ?.
Maybe I'm alone marching to this drummer, But I would always be looking over my shoulder. (not that I'd
be doing anything wrong), but by what yardstick does this Chap measure a wrong doing by and might he
have a personal agenda.

Many a well intensional laws have a uncanny way of coming back and turning into monsters or at least
loopholes against the very things they were designed for. I feel that the Law in question would start off
well intentional but could be used through manipulation to create a Society of Informers in all walks of life.

As for those perfect, righteous, politically correct and Puritans who would never think of taking the odd role of Scotch tape home from the office,drive over 20km in a School Zone,drive 75k in a 55k,take a 30min break
instead of 15,forget to give back over change of $10.00 to a cashier,dump they car ashtrays in the parking
lot,spit or discard wrappers on a public sidewalk,creative reporting on tax returns,padding expense & taxi
receipts.Has his buddy watch out while he grabs 30winks on guard duty at 0200, So don,t you think a person who does even a quarter of these things should be reported and punished. Ridiculous you say, or do we use a yardstick to measure the severity, after all a crime is a crime, So your best Buddy decides he just
can't stand your inappropriate behavior and turns you in. Well good for him, he'll still be your best Buddy
after you get out of the Stockade. So hence don't, wish for a Law, you might get more than you wished
for.

For CFL, Rewards you say, Ridicule, Disdain and Threats, I wonder why that is. For coming home alive in
which the circumstances you give as an example are highly unlikely please you can do better than that, but your reasoning sounds pretty self-serving.

Again certain members are using this opportunity to take shots at the Military Police, well I guess thats
par for the course.

KevinB, I don't remember asking for any apology for myself or opinions, but I did find it objectable that
they should reflect on the MP Branch as a whole. If you are finding it difficult to distingwish between my personal opinions and the opinions and attitudes of the MP Branch, I suggest you might consult one of your
learned colleagues to explain it to you.

Recceguy, I apologize for using the latter part of this quote to you for addressing other matters and Members.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Jul 2005)

If getting a guy off the range for being under ANY influence is self serving consider me guilty.  I've never been in the situation to contemplate turning a guy in but if he is a danger to me or troops around me I'll have him sorted out in a second and that's any rank.  Whether it be a Section commander who wants to take his patrol through a known minefield or a WO that's a lush and over stepping his bounds.  I'll follow the chain and have it dealt with.
As far as picking on the MP's well it may be par for the course because your comments reflect certain steriotypes that have been formed through the years.  We all have a job to do and I know people think of MP's in a certain way probably without evening knowing them.  I am friends with two myself and I hope they haven't changed that much since rebadging.


----------



## Aegis (6 Jul 2005)

I don't post on here often but this particular topic has a special interest to me and I definitely understand how it may have an interest to Kevin B. 

 Fast Eddy - Your argument against this type of protection for CF members seems absurd. The US army has had protections for whistleblowers since 23 Jun 2000 (Directive Number: 7050.6) which augments a 12 Aug 1995 directive. I was unable to find any supporting data for your claims that this has resulted in an increase in punishments for what may be less severe infractions.

 Your assertion that, should this protection exist, members would be punished for, 

           





> "taking the odd role of Scotch tape home from the office,drive over 20km in a School
> Zone,drive 75k in  a 55k,take a 30min break instead of 15,forget to give back over change of
> $10.00 to a cashier,dump they car ashtrays in the parking lot,spit or discard wrappers on a public
> sidewalk,creative reporting on tax returns,padding expense & taxi receipts.Has his buddy watch
> out while he grabs 30winks on guard duty at 0200"



 has no basis in fact or reality. It is in fact emotional and an argument based on an appeal to fear of punishment but doesn't debate the actual issue. 


Furthermore your preface of this statement with, 



> "As for those perfect, righteous, politically correct and Puritans who would never think 		of..."



 is an Ad Hominem argument and particularly inflammatory as it attacks your debaters and not the topic.

 As to your question, about how would I feel about serving with someone like that the answer is I would feel good. Here I would be serving with a person who would be willing to sacrifice personal comfort for doing what they believe, and society has indicated, is the right thing. To me this would be a sign of integrity. All of the things you listed as minor infractions that a person would have to all of a sudden be worried about being punished for have their purpose. Do any of us ever follow these rules 100% of the time? No. We are however showing ourselves to be conscientious and unselfish individuals when we attempt to follow them, and if on those times we fail someone reminds us to, "Slow down in a school zone.", perhaps the safety of those children is more important than my desire to break a well intentioned rule.

 As to this,



> "If you are finding it difficult to distingwish between my personal opinions and the 		opinions and attitudes of the MP Branch, I suggest you might consult one of your
> learned colleagues to explain it to you."



the forum moderators, specifically Mike Bobbitt have explained very clearly that when a post is made here we represent more than ourselves. I particularly like the example given by Mike so I will use it here,



> "So before you post, imagine you're in uniform, talking to a room full of the press, 14 		year old kids, your CO, and your grandmother."



here your post does represet yourself but it also represents the MP branch and the CF as a whole.

  Please excuse the length of this post. As this topic provides a check and balance for those with information versus those with power I find this topic very important.


----------



## FastEddy (6 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> If getting a guy off the range for being under ANY influence is self serving consider me guilty.   I've never been in the situation to contemplate turning a guy in but if he is a danger to me or troops around me I'll have him sorted out in a second and that's any rank.   Whether it be a Section commander who wants to take his patrol through a known minefield or a WO that's a lush and over stepping his bounds.   I'll follow the chain and have it dealt with.
> As far as picking on the MP's well it may be par for the course because your comments reflect certain steriotypes that have been formed through the years.   We all have a job to do and I know people think of MP's in a certain way probably without evening knowing them.   I am friends with two myself and I hope they haven't changed that much since rebadging.




Well I guess your superiors should walk softly around you. As for the circumstances you list, the possibility of
them occurring are so remote and so removed from the nature of Military Training its hard to even imagine.

From your comments one could guess that Discipline has eroded beyond repair. As for RSM's & WO's, being
dealt with from a complaint from a Jr.NCO, things sure must have changed.

With regard to the unpopularity of any Law Enforce Agency, are usually centered around Myth, Exaggeration, Ignorance, Dislike of Authority and by the perpetuity of those Hostel sentiments by people much like your-self. Even though it is offensive, it is received without prejudice with the knowledge of where its coming from.


----------



## McG (6 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> As for those perfect, righteous, politically correct and Puritans who would never think of taking the odd role of Scotch tape home from the office,drive over 20km in a School Zone,drive 75k in a 55k,take a 30min break
> instead of 15,forget to give back over change of $10.00 to a cashier,dump they car ashtrays in the parking
> lot,spit or discard wrappers on a public sidewalk,creative reporting on tax returns,padding expense & taxi
> receipts.Has his buddy watch out while he grabs 30winks on guard duty at 0200, So don,t you think a person who does even a quarter of these things should be reported and punished.


Your a fool & fearmonger if you want us to buy into this line of thinking.

Please, take of the blinders or pull your head out of its orifice.  All us "righteous, politically correct Puritans" don't give a damn about the roll of tape.  We want to know that Pte Bloggins does not have to worry about his career for reporting Maj Superstar showing up to shoot while still hammered.  We want to know that Cpl Smith won't suffer when he passes higher that LCOl thunderflash used military pers and equipment for landscaping of a golf course in exchange for a season pass.  We want to know that Joe Civi in NDHQ can safely go public about political intervention that leads us to buy (potentially inadequate) second rate equipment at twice the price.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Jul 2005)

Ding Ding.

Bad LT out to you.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (6 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> As for the circumstances you list, the possibility of
> them occurring are so remote and so removed from the nature of Military Training its hard to even imagine.



Unfortunately, both those occurrences have happened, and on more than one occasion.


----------



## KevinB (6 Jul 2005)

PPCLI MCpl said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, both those occurrences have happened, and on more than one occasion.



YUP -- unfortunate - but true.

 So FastEddy  question for you.

A troop is smuggling cocaine into threatre - what would you do?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Jul 2005)

Kev thats not a fair question.  What if that troop was a fellow MP?


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jul 2005)

>A snitch is still a snitch.

What a fine ethical foundation.   My failure to be voluntarily complicit in someone else's wrongdoing makes me an *******.   Does that about sum it up?

>Well my ethical friend, just answer my question on the Partner issue, then I'll take up the Political
Correctness issue.

Two observations:
1) A "partner" always behaves ethically so the other partner never has to decide whether to lodge a complaint.
2) A "partner" intervenes firmly with sound counsel when it appears the other partner is about to have a weak moment.

Anyone who can't meet those obligations isn't a partner; he's an accomplice.

Rule (2) is also for subordinates, particularly staff, with respect to superiors.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jul 2005)

Just to pitch in my 2 cents, if you're such a poor judge of character that you can't tell what sort of behaviour your "partner" will find unacceptable, you probably shouldn't be an MP in the first place.   I'm sure most of the rest of us don't normally have a problem figuring out where to draw the line.  It's just like knowing not to crack certain jokes in front of certain people.

As has been pointed out, this idea isn't meant to punish you for stealing pens from the office, it's intended to protect those members who are put in the akward position of having to correct the failings of their superiors.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jul 2005)

Well, this has just turned into a shit slinging match. If it can't be swung back to the original intent, it'll be locked.


----------



## FastEddy (7 Jul 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Well, this has just turned into a crap slinging match. If it can't be swung back to the original intent, it'll be locked.




Yes Recceguy, this thread has degenerated beyond recognition. Please do put us ALL out of our misery
before it becomes real nasty.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jul 2005)

No, I think this is still a good subject, but lets let the horse rest in piece, Fast Eddy made his point, and the disagreements have been made, so lets get back on topic because I think this topic has a real point to be made.
[ and when I sober up in the morning I will let you know what it is]


----------



## FastEddy (7 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, I think this is still a good subject, but lets let the horse rest in piece, Fast Eddy made his point, and the disagreements have been made, so lets get back on topic because I think this topic has a real point to be made.
> [ and when I sober up in the morning I will let you know what it is]




That would be a refreshing change.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jul 2005)

What would be, me sober or me making a good point............?


----------



## TCBF (7 Jul 2005)

We need whistleblower protection not for the people who will do the right thing no matter what, but for the very human beings who WANT to do the right thing, but don't know how they will send Becky to the U of T once they are railroaded out of the DND public service or the CF.

And we need it now.

Tom


----------



## KevinB (7 Jul 2005)

We already have a requirment in the QR&O's to be whistleblowers.

Protection is needed for those who do the right thing.

 Stigma from Peers sucks but can be worked through - and in serious cases a sober second thought will likely have the peers seeing your point.  Protection from a clique above is necessary since when you whistleblow on someone who can influence your PER/PDR and his circle gathers close to protect him it can crucify low ranks. -- anyone remember the Dragoons in Pet who brought the BGen Douglas helicopter hunting to light in the late 80's while they did the right thing they got royally screwed by the chain.

 I posted somewhere else about gray turning to black.  The CF is a hard place to whistleblow especially the combat arms since the cameraderie and the necessity of being able to trust your buddy with your life makes for powerful alliegences.  

However Friendship above all Except Honour...  by becoming party to anothers actions you end up disgracing yourself, your unit, and the CF as a whole.


----------



## FastEddy (7 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What would be, me sober or me making a good point............?




We'll settle for a good point.


----------

