# No sex please, we‘re on duty



## Pikache (2 Sep 2003)

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=01FDB0EC-3641-491C-A6B8-D706B25ED992 

Canadian soldiers caught ‘fraternizing‘ to be disciplined

Chris Wattie  
CanWest News Service 


Tuesday, September 02, 2003

CREDIT: Canadian Press 

THE FLAG GOES UP IN KABUL: Even husbands and wives who serve together may not get together. 

ADVERTISEMENT 


KABUL -- By official orders, 1,900 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan will remain celibate for their entire six-month tour with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF): a kiss, even holding hands with another soldier or civilian is grounds for disciplinary action and a one-way ticket home.

The Camp Julien policy on "fraternization" -- the military‘s euphemism for sex -- brooks no funny business whatsoever, even between the handful of married couples with both spouses deployed to Afghanistan.

The camp‘s standing orders read: "To ensure operational effectiveness through maintenance of discipline, morale, and cohesion, Canadian contingent members of TFK [Task Force Kabul] shall not engage in personal relationship activities while present in the TFK [area of operations]."

One soldier, whose wife is also a member of the Canadian battlegroup, called the policy on "personal relationship activities" ridiculous.

"There‘s guys whose wives are back in Canada who‘ve talked to them more often than I‘ve talked to my wife," said the soldier, who did not want his name used. "I‘m lucky if I get to see her once a week."

He said because of the "frat policy" he and his wife have to take separate planes to their mid-deployment vacation -- a brief leave that all members of the mission get during the six-month deployment -- even though they are both going to the same resort. "If one of us was in prison, at least we‘d get conjugal visits," he said sourly.

About 10 per cent of the Canadian troops in Afghanistan are female, but there are also a number of women among the civilian workers and contractors living on the camp. 

Captain David Sinclair, the military lawyer for the Canadian battlegroup, said that the rule was established as a matter of maintaining discipline within the ranks, discipline which he said was vitally important to their mission and ultimately the safety of the troops.

"It‘s the little things that add up to make a safer environment -- to save lives ultimately."

Violations of the policy will result in a charge under Section 129 of the National Defence Act, "conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline," Sinclair said, which carries penalties ranging from detention (a military jail term) or demotion, to a fine or extra duties, down to a simple caution.

"It depends on the circumstances," he said.

The offenders will, however, almost certainly be sent back to Canada, depriving them of their allowances for overseas duty, hardship pay and other bonuses.

Sinclair said no charges have yet been laid for fraternizing, but some soldiers on guard duty in the camp say there are already a handful of couples sneaking into dark corners to "engage in personal relationship activities," activities which are readily apparent to sentries equipped with night-vision goggles (NVG). 

"It‘s amazing what you can see with NVGs," one private said with a knowing grin.

© Copyright 2003 Vancouver Sun

***

Jeebus help those horny troops. I foresee a lot of dates with Rosy Palmer. Oh wait, would that be frat too?


----------



## combat_medic (2 Sep 2003)

I read that this morning. It just makes me shake my head sometimes the idiocy that National Defence manages to come up with. 

*Points DND to Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs*


----------



## Devlin (2 Sep 2003)

I guess this one wins as the make work project of the week. Holy crap as if the poor buggers over there didn‘t have enough to deal with.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (2 Sep 2003)

Would you want some blue balled boy behind you daydreaming while holding a C9? No thanks.
Let them go like rabbits I say. This is obviously designed to prevent any jealous rivals from shooting it out or being distracted.I personally would find frustration more distracting.


----------



## Recce41 (2 Sep 2003)

That is Dumb! ****, single fellas can go out and F$%^ . Why can‘t married couples. WAIT. But old Bruce and Butch can. For that my holding against their butt F$%^ rights.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Sep 2003)

Hmm, when a friend was in 1 GS battalion, he told me stories of how his comrades whined and cried because they had to go without beer for a week at a time (poor dears).

I don‘t see anything wrong with preventing married couples from engaging in activities that other men and women are prevented from engaging in due to the forced seperation from their spouses.

Some guy actually whined about only seeing his wife "once a week"?

Tough ****; how many guys on deployment have to wait six months?

I bet no one dies as a result of these policies.  A little discipline never killed anyone, even from the "me" generation we‘ve spawned.


----------



## Danjanou (2 Sep 2003)

I remember as a brand new M/Cpl many many years ago being given some wise advice from an old soldier: "never issue an order you know won‘t be obeyed."

Seems to me someone at NDHQ (once again) has forgotten this good advice.

I just got an e-mail from someone I know on the ground (besides Doug) in Kabul who noted that they just received an extra 650 pairs of NVGs and was surprised as they didn‘t expected to be so well equipped. Well now we know why they were sent.


----------



## Armymedic (3 Sep 2003)

Sex in the Army....
I am not sure what you opinion is on this issue of married couples being ordered not to have sex while deployed. While I disagree with them NOT being allowed to take leave together, inside the wire there should be no more "interaction" then professional military ethics and orders allow. 
As a medic, I strongly disagree with two members who are married, or legally common law (to include all legal relationships) being deployed to the same deployment at the same time. 
My reasoning is simple; If the Infantry Husband (for example) is injured or killed, how effective is his deployed wife going to be doing her job(especially if she‘s a medic) for the next few weeks while she‘s having to go back to Canada for his funeral/rehabilitation. 
Here in Petawawa, sent one spouse to Athena, the other to Bosnia...that way, in thoery, there would be a minimum amount of disruption as the crisis of a fatality would be spread out amongst the resources available. 
There are enough qualified people to fill those positions to prevent that from happening. 

By the way, yes I‘m married, no my wife is a civilian, and I know and are friends with more then one married or otherwised involved couple overseas.


----------



## Recce41 (3 Sep 2003)

My wife and I were on tour together. And it was a pain. But her csm was not an a55. His wife was military and agreed that if couples are deployed together. It no ones business what happens. 
 For there are single and married men and women at ALL ranks. Having a few visits to the sea container. I was on duty once and found a few at a OP. 
 This is the only real dumb tour. 
  :evil:    :tank:


----------



## marshall sl (12 Sep 2003)

Hmmm, This is as crazy as being ordered to wear that green uniform when they finaly have the desert ones!

I served with CCUNEFME in Ismalia. There was a whole lote of fraternization there. Mind you, us Cpl Ptes did not see alot of it. Mostly Sergeants and up!


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2003)

If my wife dies while serving in bosnia with me OR at home in canada it‘s going to effect me the same.


"a kiss, even holding hands with another soldier or civilian is grounds for disciplinary action and a one-way ticket home."
Apparently no one has ever seen guys in the infantry (among other trades etc..) horsing around "a$$ grabbing" as they say. Guy slapps another guys a$$ or something else in that realm and it‘s a big laugh. You get caught sitting on a cot beside your girlfriend simply talking to her "too much" and your fraternizing.

That my friends is a decision made by someone very far away from the ‘day to day army‘. The dutch just for example while deployed on operation have a open policy. Whatever you do with another soldier in your own privacy is fine, just don‘t touch the locals. Anyone who thinks that this kinda policy would lead to more harassment cases or work related problems would be 100% wrong. (Something i checked into)


----------



## Armymedic (16 Sep 2003)

I can‘t believe how right-out-of-it some of you people are.....

This policy, like the drinking policy, is put out as a guideline for the C of C so that when people screw up (mind the pun)they have a clear policy to arrange disciplinary action. It is not to prevent harrasment, sexual or otherwise, or anyone from seeing thier spouse. Practically it would not be enforced unless someone complains about it...

As for buddy who can‘t take leave with his wife, that to is a C of C problem, that, in the intrest of taking care of your subordinates, should and probably will be sorted out eventually. Possibly he/she is in a leadership role that prevent them from having flexibility to choose thier leave....


----------



## Walter Brunszwick (16 Sep 2003)

WoW! Fellas! This most certainly sounds not like an army - arguing over sex issues overseas? I‘dve thought that there is something bigger happening over there. Personally, I think sex should be restricted to any active soldier on duty, as I would follow the same rules. I however, am more serious, and would no be wanting to join an army in which my fellow company either does not follow orders, or does ridiculous things. The Canadian Army should be structered more like the United States Army - rigid and disciplinary ... in other words, none of this b*** s***.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Sep 2003)

Do you have any idea the problems the US army had with sexual ASSAULT (not to mention harassment)  in the not so long ago past?

Your going to tell people to behave and expect human nature to be put on hold?

I think your a bit out of your element.

"This most certainly sounds not like an army - arguing over sex issues overseas?"

Sex in the military dates back to the roman days, if not longer.  Give your head a shake fella and go join the disciplined army that never fires without permission or without knowing exactly what they are shooting at.

(Sorry major had to throw that in)


----------



## McInnes (16 Sep 2003)

> I however, am more serious, and would no be wanting to join an army in which my fellow company either does not follow orders, or does ridiculous things.


So sex is a ridiculous thing?
And you no be joining an army that does not follow orders...

From what I have gathered from this thread, ‘not following orders‘ has not been a major issue. I would recommend you think awhile before you go all hard-core on dicipline...


----------



## Armymedic (17 Sep 2003)

WAltZ,
I will take you post with the undertstanding that you have absolutly no understanding, or practical experience at all with what you said....

You mistake the "bitching" these pers are doing with disobeying directives, which I ensure that they are not.....
One privelidge we have is the ability to complain about things that do not make sense in a way that is not directly subordinate to the Chain of Command (CofC). The only error, which these personnel were no doubt counseled (our euphinism for "chewed out") was that he spoke about it to a media person, who then printed it. This policy is similar to Rules of Engagments (ROE) or the drinking policy, in that everyone is given guidelines to conduct to follow and the consiquences that will happen when someone causes a problem.
As for your concept that the US Army is disciplined;
I would have to argue, based on much practical experience, that the Americans, while a professional Army, lack the discipline that we have in our Army. When I was on a small unit exchange (SUE), the leadership of the American company was astounded that our troops would carry out our tasks and duty without question, where as thier troops would be tardy and sloppy in thier identical tasks. With equivelent tasks and numbers of personnel, they had all sorts of disciplinary problems including insubordination and assualt of a superior, where as ours on that SUE was an incident after hours in a bar after the ex. 

More Proof-Friendly Fire-Canadians would be in jail, accidental or not.  :evil:  

need I say more.....


----------



## ducimuscapt (17 Sep 2003)

I would have to concer, married service couples should not be deployed to the same OP.  Notwithstanding the other issues that arise, the proximity breads this discussion.

Having been a married service couple and experienced this, I say in hind site, the deployment of a service couple invites discipline into thier married life/couple and this should not happen.


----------



## civy2000 (23 Sep 2003)

This isn‘t the first time i‘ve heard of such things occuring on deployment or in training. 

I‘ve heard/seen incidents occur and in most cases its just a matter of looking the other way. I believe what happens behind closed doors off duty is everyone‘s own choice. Personally I‘m not going to go hunt down people who are out getting some nookie. 

However, common sense applies. AKA.. don‘t play with the locals. Heard too many stories of people coming back with extra unwelcome presents from Operations.

As for it being a upset if you are on Operation and you lose a partner, no matter where you are in the world it will pretty much turn you into a wreck, whether your in Canada, Bosnia or otherwise. 

Common sense rules in this case...


----------



## Armymedic (25 Sep 2003)

Civy,
my point exactly...    

An ‘absolute‘ direction(refer to Dictatorship in the dictionary) in a situation such as this case would interfere with the morals (and morale) of the supervisors being forced to enforce the strict rules in which they may not agree. 

Flexibilty and common sense always dictates. Thats what makes us leaders.


----------



## Recce41 (26 Sep 2003)

Well folks
 If single guys can get F$%^ed over there. Why can‘t married couples. I have been on tours where there was more F%^&ing going on. 
 The only reason for this is because the single soldiers are upset. Grow the F up. In WW1,2,Korea married couples met.
   :evil:    :tank:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Sep 2003)

> Well folks
> If single guys can get F$%^ed over there. Why can‘t married couples. I have been on tours where there was more F%^&ing going on.
> The only reason for this is because the single soldiers are upset. Grow the F up. In WW1,2,Korea married couples met.


I don‘t know how you can say this with a straight face.  Many men did get married overseas in WW II, but Canadian wives did not accompany husbands overseas, with a few exceptions (almost always officers and general officers).  The overwhelming vast majority of Canadian soldiers in WW II and Korea had no contact with their wives other than via letters.  Some of these men left for England in December 1939 and didn‘t come home until late 1945 and into 1946 (though not inconsiderable numbers of the 39ers did come home in 1944, too).  In any event, it was not uncommon to go five years without seeing their wives and children.  Anyone complaining about a six month tour might want to think about that, especially since contact with wives is apparently much easier via email or telephone.


----------



## Recce41 (27 Sep 2003)

it was a indirect statment. There were service couples back then also. The Army just has to grow up. Who gives a SweetF, I dont. The ***  who came up with this is some married officer, whos wife is back in Canada. I am glad I am out soon. There are too many dumbies. That are right out of it. This stupid sh7t is why good soldiers get out. There is about 6 Snr NCOs, out this yr that I know. Im one, promoted or not. 
  :evil:    :tank:


----------

