# Vandals hit Fan Fest military displays



## JasonH (24 May 2005)

> *Vandals hit Fan Fest military displays*
> 
> KELLY PEDRO, Free Press Crime Reporter    2005-05-24 01:55:49
> 
> ...



 :-\ God damn people these days


----------



## Slim (24 May 2005)

Fucking little vandalizing Sh*theads...Enough is enough. The ironic thing is that the very people whos kit they're defacing are the ones that bought them the freedom to do so...I wonder what they would have thought of life under the German Third Reich?!


----------



## shadow (24 May 2005)

Disgusting....
It's like at my University.  The Recruiting Posters are all covered with Hate Slogans.
If only they knew.....


----------



## Sergeant295 (24 May 2005)

See the problem with today's youth is that increased incident of mariquna use coupled with them having an almost unnatural connection with the values of the 1960's and 1970's makes them want to be living during the Vietnam Era.  Since they cannot they use the Iraq War as their Vietnam so they can protest in what I can only assume are the hopes that they can tell stories like their parents do.  The problem is that since they did not live during the Vietnam era they fail to realize that most protest then were actually anti-war not anti-soldier and anti-military like they are today.  As someone who serves in the United States and someone who has served in the past two wars I can tell you that this is the case in America, anti-war not anti-soldier.  

There is nothing wrong with being anti-war, hell I've seen it and not liked it too much so I suppose I am anti-war also which is a sentiment that I pass on to all who oppose to where I have been.  The difference however is that as objectionable as war is, the act of war will always exist and dispite how terrible it may be in terms of the means the results will always be the same:  Afghanistan has free elections and free people now, dispite who will argue otherwise and Iraq is going in the direction also dispite the violence.

What happened in London is a discrace becase of the disrespect it shows the soldiers of not only the Canadian Forces but ever solider who has ever served no matter what nationality. If you want to oppose war then do it, but I think youth or anybody who does needs to remember that dispite their objections soldiers do a job that they will never do; a job that needs to be done.  Furthermore in the case of these individuals soldiers do the job that they are too guttless to do.  I hope the if the police catch these people who did this the judge sentences them to military service so they can get a taste of what it means to be detested by poeple like them.  Shame on these people, for they exploit the freedom we all fight and some die to protect.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 May 2005)

Sergeant295 said:
			
		

> See the problem with today's youth is that increased incident of mariquna use coupled with them having an almost unnatural connection with the values of the 1960's and 1970's makes them want to be living during the Vietnam Era.   Since they cannot they use the Iraq War as their Vietnam so they can protest in what I can only assume are the hopes that they can tell stories like their parents do.   The problem is that since they did not live during the Vietnam era they fail to realize that most protest then were actually anti-war not anti-soldier and anti-military like they are today.   As someone who serves in the United States and someone who has served in the past two wars I can tell you that this is the case in America, anti-war not anti-soldier.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with being anti-war, hell I've seen it and not liked it too much so I suppose I am anti-war also which is a sentiment that I pass on to all who oppose to where I have been.   The difference however is that as objectionable as war is, the act of war will always exist and dispite how terrible it may be in terms of the means the results will always be the same:   Afghanistan has free elections and free people now, dispite who will argue otherwise and Iraq is going in the direction also dispite the violence.
> 
> What happened in London is a discrace becase of the disrespect it shows the soldiers of not only the Canadian Forces but ever solider who has ever served no matter what nationality. If you want to oppose war then do it, but I think youth or anybody who does needs to remember that dispite their objections soldiers do a job that they will never do; a job that needs to be done.   Furthermore in the case of these individuals soldiers do the job that they are too guttless to do.   I hope the if the police catch these people who did this the judge sentences them to military service so they can get a taste of what it means to be detested by poeple like them.   Shame on these people, for they exploit the freedom we all fight and some die to protect.



I'm not sure the _attachment_ to the '60s is unnatural.

The _boomers_, the '60s generation â â€œ were educated by/under the influence of the generation which came of age in the _dirty thirties_.  Left wing â â€œ sometimes hard left wing â â€œ _solution_ to economic and social problems (and there were plenty) were immensely popular in/around 1935.

The kids who _came of age_ in '65 - '70 are now educating/influencing the 15 â â€œ 25 age group: the disoriented vandals.


----------



## rcr (24 May 2005)

These kids aren't taught much about Canadian history on the great warfronts and our contributions to conflict zones world wide.  They learn a lot about what Louis Riel meant to the country and how Colonel By built a loch system, but not much about how we dropped the gloves for a good cause time and time again.  I graduated HS almost two years ago, and after taking all the History classes I could, I never really came out with an understanding of such sacrifices made through our nations history.  I had to learn for myself, mostly.  I, without a doubt, will table the school system and classroom content as a contributing factor to their arrogance.  Anyone remember when the National Cenotaph was vandalized with similiar slogans back in 2003, on the eve of 11/11?


----------



## GO!!! (24 May 2005)

Anyone remember when some reservists caught a couple of kids spray painting army tents at the Ottawa Expo. 4-5 yrs ago?

I was just watching, but by god did they pay! BWAHAHAHA >


----------



## Sergeant295 (24 May 2005)

Okay I will withdraw the wording of unnatural when making the comparison to their attachment to the 1960's and 1970's.  I suppose in retrospect it was not the correct word to use.  All I meant is that they maybe do not attach themselves to the values of that era in the way they were intended by those who influenced and lived in those era, in this case being anti-solider and military rather then anti-war.  

I will also agree with whomever stated that kids today are not taught enough about Canadian Military History.  I am a duel citizen and although I live and serve in America I grew up primarily in Canada and was educated there.  I always found that the education of military honors of Canada was more generilized by each conflict and rather then really looking at the specifics and nature of the event the causes and result were emphasised.  I would say it is the same here in the U.S. the only real difference here is that the miltiary is really rooted in the nature of what it means to be American which in my opinion is a good thing.

Canada and America have a rich history in the military and have served the world with honor since each of their incesptions. I just wish people would respect the nature of the work soldiers do and realize the value of it rather then seeing all soldiers as war makers.


----------



## SchmDG (24 May 2005)

I was talking to my father about the state of education in Canada regarding the military history just the other day.  As a retired teacher, he mentioned that he was 'not-quite' actively discouraged from teaching Canadian history by some of the admin types he dealt with.  It was OK to teach about the American Civil War, but just don't mention that the Canadians had participated in anything violent.  At least until Nov 11th rolled around.  Then really quickly gloss it over and move on...


Why are our institutions afraid to discuss these types of things???


----------



## Horse_Soldier (24 May 2005)

SchmDG said:
			
		

> Why are our institutions afraid to discuss these types of things???


Left-lib bias.  Everything related to the military is bad, because we all know that war-mongering soldiers start wars, enjoy them to the max and want more - it's good for promotion, to get neat kit and to take-over civilized societies.  Therefore, it is best not to teach that part of our history, lest impressionable youngsters get the idea that there is something noble about fighting for our country.  Or at least that's the story I've gotten from all too many otherwise intelligent individuals, some of whom are related to me.  You have to remember that internationalism is a bedrock of socialism and that we are all brothers (at least the oppressed classes) who should not be fighting each other for the evils of capitalism.

OK, time to remove my tongue from my cheek  ;D.


----------



## Rebel_RN (24 May 2005)

I find it absolutely repulsive that kids or anyone for that matter defame military property and spew utter garbage to soldiers and about the forces. What military personnel do and have done is something that we as a society could not live without. Without these great people the world that we know right now certainly wouldn't be the world that we'd be living in. It's a shame that this continued ignorance takes such a prominent and prevalent place in the lives of some of our youths. They know not what they do ( I think) and they should be taught a lesson or several for that matter.


----------



## FredDaHead (24 May 2005)

I wasn't gonna post in here, but this has got to stop.

First, "kids" aren't the most ardent anti-war (anti-soldier, or whatever) people around. The people I know who are the most opposed to war are actually in their 30s or 40s. The people my age who are opposed to war all agree (with maybe one exception) that in some situations (say, WW2 or Rwanda) it can be the only way left.

Also, you assume the only people who would do something illegal is, again, kids. I wouldn't be surprised if those who wrote those grafitis are actually in their 30s. It could be "kids" but it could be "responsible" adults.

Yes there is a problem with "kids" these days, but the problem also lies with older people. You guys need to realize it, or at least add some nuance to what you say.

Anyways, I don't want to hijack the thread with five pages of analysis. I think what happened was unfortunate, unacceptable and those who did it, whoever they may be, need to pay dearly for it.


----------



## Sergeant295 (24 May 2005)

You are right Frederick, I never meant to accuse any particular age bracket for anything I have just found in my experience the people that are offended by me the most are 17-21 and in my opinion anyone in that age bracket that cannot handel the reality that sometimes freedom has a cost is not an adult by any scope so I refer to them as kids sometime.

I would agree that those who did this could be any age but I think you will agree that it is a discrace either way.


----------



## Dare (24 May 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I wasn't gonna post in here, but this has got to stop.
> 
> First, "kids" aren't the most ardent anti-war (anti-soldier, or whatever) people around. The people I know who are the most opposed to war are actually in their 30s or 40s. The people my age who are opposed to war all agree (with maybe one exception) that in some situations (say, WW2 or Rwanda) it can be the only way left.
> 
> ...


I would put money on the purpetrators fitting well within the realm of being defined as "kids". A persons ardency towards (true) anti-war positions does not equate to a predisposition for immature and illegal acts. Lack of experience, knowledge and wisdom equates to a predisposition to immature and illegal acts. I'm afraid that "kids" fits quite well in that generalized catagory. These individuals must take responsibility for their actions, rather than letting us blame others for their poor choices. Once caught, I'm sure many would like them to "pay dearly", but we also have to remember that we want them to learn the meaning of what they have done in it's true essence. A severe punishment would likely reverse any lesson they might learn. Given it was latex paint, it's probable that at least some thought went into making sure it was not a permanent. I think the judge should order them to spend a day or two with some veterans, pay for the cost of cleaning and let it be.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (24 May 2005)

Why even consider getting worked up about some mindless little wannabe activists that, apparently, have not done their research enough to realize that the CF has nothing to do with Op Iraqi Freedom.

It reminds me of the "cool" girls(they smoked) in my grade 6 class.  At the outbreak of the first Gulf War, they immediately staged a walk out with a banner reading "Make Love, Not War."

Kid's will always yearn to belong to some identifiable group, usually the more shocking the better.  Let them vandalize our vehicles, creating the perfect illusion of rebellion.  They will most likely end up like the lovely young lasses from my elementary school...knocked up and slinging fries at a B.C. interior Dairy Queen.  I will only concern myself with the individuals who choose to identify with another type of group: Firefighter, Police Officer, Soldier...

And on that note, I'll put the whiskey back in the cupboard and go to bed.


----------



## Sergeant295 (24 May 2005)

I agree with both PPCLI MCpl and Dare in that a day with a few Veterans would be a fitting punishment.  In terms of what you have to say PPCLI I do agree that there is not real reason for getting all worked up, as they clearly have not done their research.  It is still a shame though.


----------



## FredDaHead (24 May 2005)

Sergeant295 said:
			
		

> You are right Frederick, I never meant to accuse any particular age bracket for anything I have just found in my experience the people that are offended by me the most are 17-21 and in my opinion anyone in that age bracket that cannot handel the reality that sometimes freedom has a cost is not an adult by any scope so I refer to them as kids sometime.
> 
> I would agree that those who did this could be any age but I think you will agree that it is a discrace either way.



I didn't mean to target you (or anyone else) by saying people assume it's kids and so on. I just think people are a bit too quick usually to say "oh it's them damn kids again!" It reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Homer and the guys get drunk and trash a bunch of stuff (like the elementary school) and kids get blamed for it.

Now, it could be kids, it could not be. Like you said, it's a disgrace either way.

And yes, PPCLI MCpl, wannabe activists can do it, and many don't do research, but I just meant to say we're a bit quick to pass judgement. And good job on the whiskey.

I might have overreacted or something, but I still think people accuse kids too easily. Not that it's never right to accuse kids, because kids do stupid things... Heh, anyways... Time to drink some more whiskey.


----------



## Sc011y (24 May 2005)

I'm 16, but Ill bet it was indeed, â Å“kids.â ?  I hear it every day.  â Å“Hey man lets get wasted tonight and go knock down election signs!â ?  Was the most recent.  I can imagine that this was probably the same scenario.  I'm willing to wager that if I asked people in my grade as school how they thought the CF was doing in Iraq, probably 65% of the people asked would say something like, â Å“oh man its such crap we are such idiots for going in there!  That should teach our stupid government a lesson!â ?  That might be one scenario anyways.  The other could be that it was a genuine bunch of (if poorly researched) anti war activists.


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 May 2005)

Actually, in London there is an even chance this act was committed by anti-war or similar issue orientated protesters and not "kids" per se. We have a very serious problem in this city with a growing group of radical and irresponsible 20-40 year olds who have no respect for the history of the country and the views of others, the property of others and especially historical sites. The main Cenotaph has been similarly vandalized in recent years, especially after 9/11.


----------



## Blakey (24 May 2005)

> It reminds me of the "cool" girls(they smoked) in my grade 6 class


Man...thanks, do i ever feel old now....


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (24 May 2005)

Blakey said:
			
		

> Man...thanks, do i ever feel old now....



That's the funny thing about people, we're all different ages.


----------



## Blakey (24 May 2005)

PPCLI MCpl said:
			
		

> That's the funny thing about people, we're all different ages.


----------



## Love793 (24 May 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Actually, in London there is an even chance this act was committed by anti-war or similar issue orientated protesters and not "kids" per se. We have a very serious problem in this city with a growing group of radical and irresponsible 20-40 year olds who have no respect for the history of the country and the views of others, the property of others and especially historical sites. The main Cenotaph has been similarly vandalized in recent years, especially after 9/11.



This may very well be the case, it's no large secret that there is a organized group of left wing extremists, who operate in 31 CBG AOR.  These people have caused problems for 31 CBG units in the past, and it wouldn't surprise me if they have some involvement with this.  The worst part about these people, are they are University educated, and in most cases have minors and majors in Poli Sci.  You would think that they of all people would understand why a military is of vital importance to the nation.


----------



## canadianblue (24 May 2005)

I would bet it was "kids" as well and I'm only 18. This generation has very little respect and knowledge of this country's history and acheivements. Here is what I hear most kids say, Pierre Trudeau is the greatest PM because he nailed some hot chicks. Thats about their grasp of Canada, and the education system only really praises Trudeau from what I've learned while being in school. I even remember our school had pretty well a full year of mourning for Pierre Trudeau as well, hell I was in grade 8 at the time, and I told everybody that I thought he was a bastard. Most of the history about Canada that I've learnt, has come from my own time, always thought this country had a rich history, and would be more then proud to defend this country as well.


----------



## Marty (26 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> I would put money on the purpetrators fitting well within the realm of being defined as "kids". A persons ardency towards (true) anti-war positions does not equate to a predisposition for immature and illegal acts. Lack of experience, knowledge and wisdom equates to a predisposition to immature and illegal acts. I'm afraid that "kids" fits quite well in that generalized catagory. These individuals must take responsibility for their actions, rather than letting us blame others for their poor choices. Once caught, I'm sure many would like them to "pay dearly", but we also have to remember that we want them to learn the meaning of what they have done in it's true essence. A severe punishment would likely reverse any lesson they might learn. Given it was latex paint, it's probable that at least some thought went into making sure it was not a permanent. I think the judge should order them to spend a day or two with some veterans, pay for the cost of cleaning and let it be.



I might be way off base here but , if you are old enough to know the difference between latex and oil paint , you are most defiantly old enough to know right from wrong ...................IE you are an adult . Back when I thought paint was paint was paint I broke into a camp (with a friend) and trashed the place , I wasn't protesting anything ,and  not crying out for help, just said (*&^ it lets have some fun . When dear old Dad got to the bottom of things , he didn't send me to a therapist , he handled things in a more hands on way , for more than a few years after that everytime I saw that Camp I peed in my pants and forgot who I was for a few hours . BUT I never even thought about a life of crime after that . My point is  sometimes kids just need a kick in the ass from their father ..............if hes not to busy .......HMMMM maybe thats the problem here .


----------



## Dare (26 May 2005)

Marty said:
			
		

> I might be way off base here but , if you are old enough to know the difference between latex and oil paint , you are most defiantly old enough to know right from wrong ...................IE you are an adult . Back when I thought paint was paint was paint I broke into a camp (with a friend) and trashed the place , I wasn't protesting anything ,and  not crying out for help, just said (*&^ it lets have some fun . When dear old Dad got to the bottom of things , he didn't send me to a therapist , he handled things in a more hands on way , for more than a few years after that everytime I saw that Camp I peed in my pants and forgot who I was for a few hours . BUT I never even thought about a life of crime after that . My point is  sometimes kids just need a kick in the *** from their father ..............if hes not to busy .......HMMMM maybe thats the problem here .


I'm sure they know right from wrong too, they just believe that our wrong is their right. Which is why I suggest some exposure to the people whom would be offended the most by what they have done so they can have a better understanding of the sacrifices these people made for them. If you want to play right into their current belief stream, well why don't we just cane them publicly then.. I'm sure that's what our veterens faught for..

The best solution is a turn around with motivation, rather than a break by force. Show them the dots they don't see yet, and let them make the connections.


----------



## x-grunt (26 May 2005)

Love793 said:
			
		

> These people have caused problems for 31 CBG units in the past,



What kinds of probs have they caused you?


----------



## Hunter911 (26 May 2005)

Im only 16, but id never ever vandalize anything... Thats just common respect... Im an applicant for the reserves, and i guerentee that the people in my school who do that stuff ( and i do know a few of them) will be all for peace until theres someone pointing a gun at their head. And then and only then are they gonna have respect for the people who put their lives in danger EVERY DAY to keep them safe... Its descusting if you ask me...


----------



## Marty (26 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> I'm sure they know right from wrong too, they just believe that our wrong is their right. Which is why I suggest some exposure to the people whom would be offended the most by what they have done so they can have a better understanding of the sacrifices these people made for them. If you want to play right into their current belief stream, well why don't we just cane them publicly then.. I'm sure that's what our veterens faught for..
> 
> The best solution is a turn around with motivation, rather than a break by force. Show them the dots they don't see yet, and let them make the connections.



I always thought that our veterans fought to rid the world of a tyrant . I think a few public canings would go a long ways to fixing some of these "troubled little souls" , where do I sign up .


----------



## GO!!! (26 May 2005)

Countries like Singapore and Taiwan have had remarkable success in "altering the thought patterns" of the common petty thug with canings, labour camps and heavy fines for the parents of such perpetrators. Strangely enough, IT WORKED. 

I think the motivation Dare speaks of comes in the form of a big stick, to be applied vigorously to the backside of these punks.


----------



## Love793 (27 May 2005)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> What kinds of probs have they caused you?



They've caused interference with units in the Hamilton area.


----------



## Dare (28 May 2005)

Marty said:
			
		

> I always thought that our veterans fought to rid the world of a tyrant . I think a few public canings would go a long ways to fixing some of these "troubled little souls" , where do I sign up .


Oh, the irony.


----------



## old medic (28 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> If you want to play right into their current belief stream, well why don't we just cane them publicly then.. I'm sure that's what our veterens faught for..



Oh, the irony.


----------



## Recce41 (28 May 2005)

The problem is many things, education, TV, internet,etc. Kids see, anti military demostaitions and think is cool. When my oildest was in UofW. After some students found out that I was in the military, she had some say I was a baby killer, a Nazi,etc, not a clue what I did. She even had one PROF. say damn things. Well she don't take 5hit. He and others got it good. I even wrote a letter to the U. This guy, so called educated, not a F###ing clue. 
 But on the other side, some thatthought it was cool, and said she should be proud of what we do. I believe CANAIAN History should be taught in school. It pisses me off what my kids are taught, D### American history, who gives a sweet jack S### who Andrew Jackson is. One of my daughters had to do a essay on a US pres.. Well she didn't, I made her do it on King. The teacher phoned and asked why. I told her, we are Canadians and that is what she should be learning. The teacher agreed but , the board wants some US history also. She got a B+ on it. 
 Yes maybe some over laping history, War 1812. 
 Well thats my 2 cents. And yes, those who did it should be on TV, getting a good kick in the A55.


----------



## Slim (28 May 2005)

When I went to highschool it was all Canadian history. why has this changed?


----------



## Dare (28 May 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> Oh, the irony.


Actually, that's called sarcasm.


----------



## Hunter911 (28 May 2005)

It hasnt changed. Im in grade 10 going into grade 11... and all we study is ancient, canadian, african canadian, and world history. And that mainly has to do with WWI and WWII


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2005)

Hunter911 said:
			
		

> It hasnt changed. Im in grade 10 going into grade 11... and all we study is ancient, canadian, african canadian, and world history. And that mainly has to do with WWI and WWII



It depends on what Province you live in.   Each Province sets it's own curriculum. (You should use Spell Check to correct some of your errors in writing.   : )


----------



## Hunter911 (28 May 2005)

Haha yeah sorry thats my fault. Trying to do 3 things at once. 

Those are actually courses not the curriculum that I'm talking about. Ancient in gr 10, African Canadian and Canadian in gr 11, and World His in gr 12


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2005)

As I said, it depends on what Province you live in - not what Grade you are in.  I graduated Grade 12 in Saskatchewan with Senior Matriculation.  You would have to have gone to Grade 13 in Ontario to get the same.  My sister went from Grade 11, Saskatchewan, (Junior Matric) to First Year University in PEI.  She did not get a High School Deploma, but went directly into University in PEI with her Saskatchewan Grades.

You may learn Early Canadian History about the Fur Trade and Early Explorers in Grade 10 in one Province, while you would learn that in Grade 9 in another.  Some Provinces would teach more about Economics and Politics in History classes, while others will teach of Major Events and Social Change.  Some may cover Treaties, while others will not.  Some may put more emphasis on World History than Canadian.  Some deal in depth with British History and European History.  Others deal in depth with American History, the American Revolution and Civil War. 

There is not one Standard for the whole country.


----------



## Hunter911 (28 May 2005)

Huh! Never really knew that. Sorry about that my bad.


----------



## old medic (28 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> Actually, that's called sarcasm.



Yes, I was going to call it ignorance, but I wasn't sure you'd get the point.


----------



## Dare (28 May 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> Yes, I was going to call it ignorance, but I wasn't sure you'd get the point.


Oh, OK. Well pardon me then if it is your belief that our veterens actually did fight for the right to cane people but it seems to me more likely you didn't get *my* point. Which, as I will sum up here, is that: It is better to have the perpetrators be introduced to whom they offended and taught why it is offensive, rather than having them beat up. This might be ignorance to you. If so, do you have a more enlightened viewpoint you can share?


----------



## canadianblue (28 May 2005)

I think that their should be a mandatory class for the whole country all on Canadian History. As I see it Social Studies currently does not teach students much history, as well it's important that we instill some pride into Canadian youth's at a young age. Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 May 2005)

Sooner or later, they'll blab to their friends, bragging of their exploits, and it will get back to the authorities, but sadly with the legal system (remember there is no justice system anymore), they'll get nothing but a slap on the hands, and maybe some publicity.

Its just oo bad someones vintage private property had to be vandalised. As they are the victims. Next time post a few sentires to watch over the display in the night. Maybe they should have done this in the first place.

Anyways i do hope they catch these grubs.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Slim (28 May 2005)

I think they had a private security firm watching the stuff...Fat lot of good that did them, probably just made it more enticing to the vandals.

Slim


----------



## old medic (28 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> Oh, OK. Well pardon me then if it is your belief that our veterens actually did fight for the right to cane people but it seems to me more likely you didn't get *my* point. Which, as I will sum up here, is that: It is better to have the perpetrators be introduced to whom they offended and taught why it is offensive, rather than having them beat up. This might be ignorance to you. If so, do you have a more enlightened viewpoint you can share?



I saw your point.
And I saw you try to flame Marty for his thought on corporal punishment. Your post was very ignorant 
of both English common law and Canadian law.

Corporal punishment was legal in Canada until 1972. 
It was common to have lashes of the whip, or the cat of nine tails given at court until 1954.
As a corrective punishment it was legal before the war, during the war, and 
after the war.

The Legion and the BESL were often supporters of even harsher measures.

Thus, I do think your mis-guided. There is no way for you to say soldiers didn't support
corporal punishment.  It was part of the democratic system they were defending.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/rights/50yrs/50yrs-05_e.shtml


----------



## Dare (28 May 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> I saw your point.
> And I saw you try to flame Marty for his thought on corporal punishment. Your post was very ignorant
> of both English common law and Canadian law.
> 
> ...


Riiiight, so our veterens faught wars so we could whip vandals? They never whipped vandals and you'll notice it was abolished for a reason. Do you think vandals should be whipped with a cat o' nine tails or caned? If you do, I wouldn't be so cavalier about throwing around the "ignorant" label. 

As for Canadian Law and English common law, we can go all the way back before the Magna Carta if you want.. involuntary, unrepresented, undemocratic servitude is not what our veterens were fighting for, I can guarentee you that. In fact, the strong Irish and Scottish contingant in the CAF were the ancestors of the very ones that faught English rule at the time. So if you're going to use Law or law as a basis for your arguement you should be aware that while the Rule of Law is indeed a critical element, I would say most veterens were fighting for *freedom*. Just because they supported stricter penalties does not mean that is what they were fighting for. I support flossing after meals, that doesn't mean I'm going to fight for it. I'm sure the Legion supports all sorts of things, but by all means, if you like the Singapore model, carry on. Maybe we can start cutting thieves hands off, or executions for drug possession like Indonesia. That'll clean the streets up! Personally, though, this http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/27/corby.appeal/ angers me a lot. She's lucky they did not execute her, but maybe not when she finally gets to her cell..

And lastly, how is what I said a "flame". If you consider what I said to be a flame, was it your intent to flame me with your response? I simply found it ironic that one could talk about fighting tyranny in one sentence and then want to sign up to administer public beatings in the next.. maybe I'm just misguided though..


----------



## old medic (29 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> Riiiight, so our veterens faught wars so we could whip vandals?



Ah... Blanket statements, and the crux of this...
If you don't think I should make blanket statements saying they do, 
why did you make one saying they didn't back on page two of this thread?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30977/post-220221.html#msg220221
Then when Marty tried to point that out, 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30977/post-220297.html#msg220297
you tossed in a sniper comment at him:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30977/post-220905.html#msg220905




> They never whipped vandals



Not completely true. 

Although by 1953 the CCC gave the whip under the following sections:

s.80 Assaults on the sovereign: 7 years imprisonment + whipping
s.276 Strangling to commit an indictable offence: life imprisonment + whipping
s.292 Indecent assault on female, wife beating, beating a female: 2 years + whipping
s.299 Rape: death, or life imprisonment with or without whipping
s.300 Attempts to commit rape: 7 years + whipping
s.301 Carnal knowledge of girl under 14: life imprisonment + whipping
s.302 Attempt to have carnal knowledge of girl under 14: 2 years + whipping
s.293 Indecent assault on a male: 10 years + whipping
s.457 Burglary while armed with an offensive weapon: life imprisonment + whipping
s.448 Assault with intent to rob: 3 years + whipping


Once you were incarcerated for *any* crime, a different set of rules applied.
After the Guelph jail riot in 1952, there were 50 sentences carried out under
lines e and k of the prison book below:

"Punishment by the strap shall only be inflicted in extreme cases and for the following offences:

(a) Assault with violence on officers.
(b) Assault with violence on other inmates.
(c) Continued course of bad conduct.
(d) Escape or attempted escape.
(e) *Malicious destruction of or injury to machinery or property*.
(f) Malingering.
(g) Mutinous conduct.
(h) Repeated fighting after warning.
(i) Refusal to work after warning.
(j) Repeated insolence to officers.
(k) *Riotous conduct in dormitories, cells, working gangs or elsewhere.
*
The number of blows with the strap shall be in proportion to the offence committed, and in no case shall exceed ten at any one application. "



> Do you think vandals should be whipped with a cat o' nine tails or caned? If you do, I wouldn't be so cavalier about throwing around the "ignorant" label.



I'm on the fence.



> As for Canadian Law and English common law, we can go all the way back before the Magna Carta if you want.. involuntary, unrepresented, undemocratic .....



I think you'd be hard pressed on that.  Corporal punishment was only enacted by act of the elected Canadian Parliament in 1892.




> And lastly, how is what I said a "flame". If you consider what I said to be a flame, was it your intent to flame me with your response?



Outlined at the top of this message. and;
Yes. It's the same three word sentence. I think everyone caught that.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Dare, I suggest you pull the head out of the sand and look at the youth around you. Do you honestly think that making them look at the people they hurt/offended etc and saying sorry will change their ways? Because I'll tell you, it won't. Ever.


Given that I am around youth regularly, I can say absolutely it will help change their ways. You just have to communicate it effectively (speak their language). Lead by example. Show them the right thing to do. Tell them why it's the right thing to do and the often neglected *demonstrate* to them why it's the right thing to do.


> The only thing anyone understands is pain, and if you equate pain (physical or mental) with something, you won't do it again. If these kids equate vandalizing military gear with painful welts on their body, then they'll think twice next time.


Well, I disagree with that entirely. I think humanity understands both pain and love. Sure, under your method they've stopped vandalizing military gear, but do you think you've instilled a respect for veterens? The cause of this vandalism is this disrespect and it will manifest itself elsewhere.


----------



## 1feral1 (29 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> Riiiight, so our veterens faught wars so we could whip vandals? They never whipped vandals and you'll notice it was abolished for a reason.



Come off it Dare,

The only reason it was abolshed was to please the snivel libertarians and to be PC, BTW go ask a Vet what he thinks of a good caneing to the youth of today, as guess what his answer will be. Something like 'thats how it was when I was a kid, and it didn't hurt me, and maybe it would teach this criminals some respect for other peoples property'.

Not that long ago, one recieved the strap at school, parents were allowed to spand their kids, and now since the 'snivels' have had their way look at things.

I reckon if the grubs that perform these cowardly crimes got caned for punnishment, there would be a lot less crimes of thsi nature, plus a host of others too. 

My 2 bob,

Wes
 PS  How about filling in your profile too.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> Ah... Blanket statements, and the crux of this...
> If you don't think I should make blanket statements saying they do,
> why did you make one saying they didn't back on page two of this thread?
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30977/post-220221.html#msg220221
> ...


Well, frankly, I think his comment only deserved a "sniper" comment. That would be my opinion of an attitude that expresses a desire to publicly cane people. As for blanket statements, if the blanket fits, I have no problem with it. You seem to miss an important point in what I am saying. While veterens might support more punishment, they *fought* for the freedom of everyone else to override their opinion. So, I don't think it was the right of government to beat people up that veterens were fighting for after all. Which is why I feel my statement is apt.

This is what tyranny is.

   1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
   2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
   3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: â Å“I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of manâ ? (Thomas Jefferson).
   4.
         1. Use of absolute power.
         2. A tyrannical act.
   5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

I believe that public caning, generally, and especially for vandalism, equates to more than one description above. You're free to disagree, of course.


> Not completely true.
> 
> Although by 1953 the CCC gave the whip under the following sections:
> 
> ...


I do appreciate the amount of research you have put into this, but correct me if I'm wrong, you're talking about criminals in a jail riot? Not punks painting graffiti? 


> I think you'd be hard pressed on that.  Corporal punishment was only enacted by act of the elected Canadian Parliament in 1892.


Well, you did bring up English common law, and I am quite sure corporal punishment and capital punishment were both widespread in the empire. 


> Outlined at the top of this message. and;
> Yes. It's the same three word sentence. I think everyone caught that.


My intent was not to "flame", so if it is yours. I am abdicating this thread.


----------



## McFarlane (29 May 2005)

(unrelated to above post but on topic)
this is my first post on these forums.  i have had many discussions with one of my friends about this.  we both just recently joined the reserves, but we hang out with different groups of people most of the time.  all of my friends aren't necessarily supportive of me joining the army, but aren't against it.  when i told them they just basically said "oh that's cool".  but a little bit more on topic, is buddy's friends are (for some strange reason) against him joining the army.  one of them actually said "you're stupid why did you join the army? you should join the peacekeepers"!  and they think the C.F. is in Iraq!!  I just think we need some forces people (not necessarily recruiters) to come into our highschools and EDUCATE people on the Canadian Forces and their role.  i was appalled by how many people (i only know of a handful of people this naive) that know so little about the army.  the worst part is, they believe that they're misconceptions on the military are right.  most of what we hear about the military in the media is american news, and it's usually about the numbers of casualties, bombs dropped, or prisoners tortured; i have yet to see any BIG news that is a positive image for the military, or any on the canadian military (other than when the four canadians were killed by the american pilot {RIP}, again a negative image)
people honestly believe that the canadian forces are in Iraq, which is an example of why we need to EDUCATE our teens, and not just in history class.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Come off it Dare,
> 
> The only reason it was abolshed was to please the snivel libertarians and to be PC, BTW go ask a Vet what he thinks of a good caneing to the youth of today, as guess what his answer will be. Something like 'thats how it was when I was a kid, and it didn't hurt me, and maybe it would teach this criminals some respect for other peoples property'.


Is he going to fight a war for it? That is context in which I used it and meant it.


> Not that long ago, one recieved the strap at school, parents were allowed to spand their kids, and now since the 'snivels' have had their way look at things.


Well, parents are allowed to spank their kids in Canada. I'm not talking about spanking.


> I reckon if the grubs that perform these cowardly crimes got caned for punnishment, there would be a lot less crimes of thsi nature, plus a host of others too.


Maybe, or maybe it would build resentment and increase their activity. I'm sure there's one thing it would do, and that's breed a desire not to get caught again. Perhaps by becoming less interested or less active, or perhaps by becoming more skillful and more stealthy. I think there is quite a gulf of distinction between government mandated beatings and spankings by a lawful guardian. The thing that most troubled kids are missing is good *guidance*. We can teach them that a good pounding solves any problem (which is actually quite a regular theme amongst inmates), or we can teach them how to bring themselves up with explainations for their questions. Certainly there are beligerants in any situation, but most kids are easily reachable, if anyone cared enough to try. It really doesn't take a whole lot of effort. I've seen it in action first hand. I've seen kids practically begging for a positive comment because their parents have nothing good to say about them. Positive encouragement goes a long way and can make the difference. If that makes me a 'snivel', so be it. I think some people are just looking for an excuse and an outlet to take their own personal aggressions out on, but that's just speculation, of course.


> PS  How about filling in your profile too.


No, thanks.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

McFarlane said:
			
		

> (unrelated to above post but on topic)
> this is my first post on these forums.  i have had many discussions with one of my friends about this.  we both just recently joined the reserves, but we hang out with different groups of people most of the time.  all of my friends aren't necessarily supportive of me joining the army, but aren't against it.  when i told them they just basically said "oh that's cool".  but a little bit more on topic, is buddy's friends are (for some strange reason) against him joining the army.  one of them actually said "you're stupid why did you join the army? you should join the peacekeepers"!  and they think the C.F. is in Iraq!!  I just think we need some forces people (not necessarily recruiters) to come into our highschools and EDUCATE people on the Canadian Forces and their role.  i was appalled by how many people (i only know of a handful of people this naive) that know so little about the army.  the worst part is, they believe that they're misconceptions on the military are right.  most of what we hear about the military in the media is american news, and it's usually about the numbers of casualties, bombs dropped, or prisoners tortured; i have yet to see any BIG news that is a positive image for the military, or any on the canadian military (other than when the four canadians were killed by the american pilot {RIP}, again a negative image)
> people honestly believe that the canadian forces are in Iraq, which is an example of why we need to EDUCATE our teens, and not just in history class.


I agree but I doubt that there is going to be much support for that in academia. They're probably going to view it as a recruiting effort. Generally speaking, (yes, I love generalisms), teens I know have an absolutely terrible understanding of history, geography and their government. They can barely write in English and have a poor vocabulary. They tend to be mediocre at math and beyond that, it's all popular culture trivia. 

EDIT: Grammatical error. Bed time.  :blotto:


----------



## canadianblue (29 May 2005)

> Given that I am around youth regularly, I can say absolutely it will help change their ways. You just have to communicate it effectively (speak their language). Lead by example. Show them the right thing to do. Tell them why it's the right thing to do and the often neglected *demonstrate* to them why it's the right thing to do.



I am as well, and I gotta say most kids of today are complete idiots. I am part of this generation, and so far am sickened by what this generation is becoming. Even today I saw this movie Bumfights at a friends, and was completely sickened by it, it basically was these guys that made a movie were they track down bums and pay them money to abuse each other or themselves. I was even more pissed off at the fact that most anybody could rent that movie in any video store, as well as the fact the guys producing it are making a fortune. One of the guys was holding down people against their will and marking them with felts as a "tag". I was sickened through the whole thing and wondered why in the hell any people including my friends could watch such garbage. The fact that most of the audience is teens, and they are paying to watch people abuse other people just disgusts me. While I am joining the Canadian Forces to help protect my country, as well as kill for her if she ever needs me I will never get pleasure from seeing another human being abused by another for a cheap laugh. What bothered me the most was that people don't seem to care, it's as if we don't know right from wrong anymore. Hell even Howard Stern was shocked at the images they produced. These people aren't even really people in my own opinion. I want this country to have better common morals then this, I don't want to see the age were human life is something which can be so easily abused. In some ways I'm joining the forces because I am getting so sick of what is happening around me, and I want to get into the forces, make a difference, and become part of a better community.

Sorry for the rant, but this is how I feel about this generation and it pretty well says it. I don't think being soft will do this generation any good.  :threat:


----------



## Hunter911 (29 May 2005)

Personally, I'm surrounded by other kids from age 15-19 every day, and you see so many diffrent people acting in diffrent ways about vandalism. Really, most of the kids that are actually DOING this stuff are just looking for something to believe in, and they think its a good way to associate with other kids their age. A few days ago, a bunch of kids were going around posting up anti-war protest signs around the school. I understand that completely, but when i talked to them and they were planning on harassing a bunch of reservists (they had no idea i was applying), i was absolutely disgusted, and told them they should leave us alone to do our jobs! Theres been alot of vandalism around here in Halifax having to do with anti-war demonstration, but not many have been caught, and those who have, haven't really been punished... its a shame...


----------



## GO!!! (29 May 2005)

Dare,

If these individuals were really "crying out" and "looking for something to believe in" they would have found it by now. They are, quite simply, not otherwise gainfully occupied, and too lazy to actually research the multi - faceted anti - war movement. In short - they have nothing better to do. 

The young person who does some reading or asking their educators will quickly find that the best way to support an anti - war movement in Canada is through their elected representatives, who are more than willing to listen. 

But I digress.

If you truly believe that trying to reform these "troubled little souls" is the best way to alter their behaviour - you do it. But  don't say "it's society's fault" and walk away. Corporal punishment has been used by EVERY civilisation in recorded history. Why? It is effective, expedient and has a deterring effect. And no, we are not "better" than that, there were idiots in biblical times through to the present. 

Not filling out your profile (at least a bit) is indicative of the same attitude these vandals have, that of concealing your identity/character, but not your controversial (probably intentionally so) viewpoints. 

And finally, supposing  the little turds that did this were caught - what method of correction would you advocate?


----------



## old medic (29 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> This is what tyranny is...



Probably hard to come to a concensus on. Some groups think being forced to pay income tax 
is tyranny. Others think not having 100% health care funding is tyranny. 

As an example, Let's say a democracy did have corporal punishment in it's criminal legal system.
Is that tyranny, or would that be the laws and rules that society chooses to 
apply to it's members?

Re: the 1952 Guelph riot. That was regarding men in jail already.
A better example might be section 43 of the criminal code, Corporal punishment of children
in institutions and schools (prior to various changes and court rulings).
Rules on behaviour deserving the paddles or strap would vary in each institution or school (board),
but it's probably safe to assume there have been instances of children being paddled for vandalism.



> Well, you did bring up English common law.


True, but only because Canadian laws were adapted from the English law. As already discussed, they did pass 
the democratic process. I think we can put that to bed.

Re:


> Well, frankly, I think his comment only deserved a "sniper" comment.....
> My intent was not to "flame", so if it is yours. I am abdicating this thread.



Those two lines seems rather contradictory.

OM


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

A sniper comment to me is more of a quip than a flame. To me a flame (and to my recollection always has been) a full out attack, but anyways, I think I'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I understand where you're coming from on it, I just think that democratic and human rights have not always been the mainstay of our justice system and that society in general did not always have a say in the legal system of the empire. The cause of democracy that has been fought for, is not even fully realized at home yet. I do believe that corporal punishment, in general, is "Extreme harshness or severity; rigor." Tyranny is not always dressed in a swastika or a hammer and scythe. Whipping is pretty severe and harsh, I'm sure you can at least admit to that.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Dare,
> 
> If these individuals were really "crying out" and "looking for something to believe in" they would have found it by now. They are, quite simply, not otherwise gainfully occupied, and too lazy to actually research the multi - faceted anti - war movement. In short - they have nothing better to do.


I was not referring to these specific individuals with that comment, as people here seem to be intent on widening the discourse from the topic at hand. As I have said, I think these particular individuals were looking for negative attention, and I'll add they're probably also looking for some notoriety and a self-esteem boost amongst their peer group. How do you know they are not employed? Perhaps they do plenty of research in the anti-war movement. Maybe we should present them with the pro-war movement, then, hm? Or do you think you can beat them all into submission? 


> The young person who does some reading or asking their educators will quickly find that the best way to support an anti - war movement in Canada is through their elected representatives, who are more than willing to listen.


Ah, so you're depending on their educators to show them the way? Well, I dare say, that asking their educators might be a major cause of their support for the anti-war movement in the first place.


> If you truly believe that trying to reform these "troubled little souls" is the best way to alter their behaviour - you do it. But  don't say "it's society's fault" and walk away. Corporal punishment has been used by EVERY civilisation in recorded history. Why? It is effective, expedient and has a deterring effect. And no, we are not "better" than that, there were idiots in biblical times through to the present.


I do not say it is "society's fault" and walk away.


> Not filling out your profile (at least a bit) is indicative of the same attitude these vandals have, that of concealing your identity/character, but not your controversial (probably intentionally so) viewpoints.


I see, so I am on par with a vandal that needs to be caned or whipped because I did not fill out my profile. :  I have a viewpoint. I'll express it here so long as I am allowed and follow the rules. I am not concealing my identity, I am not using encryption or a proxy. If the moderators of this site feel the need, my identity is not secret. It is private. There's a difference. The real question is, why do you feel the need to know who I am? Would knowing make what I have to say any less valid? If you think I'm trolling, you thought wrong.


> And finally, supposing  the little turds that did this were caught - what method of correction would you advocate?


If you had read this thread rather than jumping on the dog pile, you would know, as it was my first post on the subject.


----------



## 1feral1 (29 May 2005)

Sounds like someone has been dabbling into too much textbooks on social issues and human behaviour than actually life experience in this subject.

No sniping or flaming either, just stating an opinion. Opinions are one thing, but you seem to be expressing some type of SME matter on here (not that there anything wrong with that).

As for profiles, we are not asking for your SIN, and eye colour Dare, just a broad (even weak, a hint) prospective on who you are. Take a look at my profile for example. I am not saying you have nothing to hide, but I am a wee tad suspicious on your excuse for not 'updating' your profile. I tend to listen better and take posts more seriously when someone has the credentials to back up what they say, after all one could be a 15 yr old leftist armchiar 'shrink' for all I know.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Sounds like someone has been dabbling into too much textbooks on social issues and human behaviour than actually life experience in this subject.
> 
> No sniping or flaming either, just stating an opinion. Opinions are one thing, but you seem to be expressing some type of SME matter on here (not that there anything wrong with that).
> 
> As for profiles, we are not asking for your SIN, and eye colour Dare, just a broad (even weak, a hint) prospective on who you are. Take a look at my profile for example. I am not saying you have nothing to hide, but I am a wee tad suspicious on your excuse for not 'updating' your profile. I tend to listen better and take posts more seriously when someone has the credentials to back up what they say, after all one could be a 15 yr old leftist armchiar 'shrink' for all I know.


Hehe. Well, no, my opinion on this is based on first hand experiences, not any mumbo jumbo. I'm glad opinions of me can range from far right extremist in another thread to an ignorant 15 year old leftist armchair shrink in another.  I understand your suspicion. It's healthy, but enough about me. I certainly don't have any commonly impressive credentials, but I am not the issue on topic. Generally, I find, that when one wants to know more about me, they want to know, not to take what I say more seriously, but to twist it to attack my character and I'd rather not be arguing the merits of my life. I prefer keeping the discussion to logical debate with few exceptions.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Dare, I AM a youth (well, was I guess, seeing as 18 is considered an 'adult') and I can without hesitation proudly state that when I was younger my dad had no problem with wacking me upside the head if I was out of line (he hesitates these days, considering now I hit back  ) and I can now look back and state that I'm not some psychotic maniac (which is what the whishy-washy crowd would like to make out kids who were 'corporally punished' to be) and I'm probably better off for it. Fine, you claim to work with kids day to day, and I can assure you that unless you are a member of the wishy-washy PC crowd, you would by now have wised up to the fact that to really end bad behaviour someone has to equate pain with it.


Your father is not the government. I don't think that all kids who have been hit upside the head turn into psychotic maniacs, nor have I implied that. I'm certainly a lightyear away from being politically correct (as I'm sure many people here can attest to) and I certainly don't find corporal punishment, generally, to be wise. Sure, maybe it worked for you. It's worked for a lot of people. It also has *not* worked for a lot of people. A troubled kid is far more likely to be in a family that verbally or physically abuses or neglects them. This culture of violence is what you will find amongst many, many convicts (the eventual home for many of these kids). It's that same culture in many of the places our troops are fighting, or are projected to fight in the future. Where the children there only respect violence and in many cases they're armed and have been soldiers longer than many people here. 


> I couldn't care less if they still dislike military stuff after the punishment, all I care about is that they do not do it again.


This very sentence illustrates why we are losing the cultural war. They might not do that particular task again, but as I said, it will manifest itself later.

I've known people who have been involved in threats that ultimately ended in two setting off explosives in the threateners house. Perhaps if they sorted out their differences it would not have led to jail time and a potentially lethal situation. 


> My dad still chases down the little 50 Cent wannabes when they dick around on my street, and I do too. Trust me on this, if some kid tosses an egg at my house and I say 'please don't do that, its mean and not allowed', they'll laugh at me and keep at it. If I chase them down, or sit on my front step with my pellet gun on Halloween night and give them a few welts to remember me by, I can assure you (from first hand experience) that they don't come back.


Well, I'll sidestep the legal implications of that. As the owner of an excellent, purposeful slingshot and having been in similar scenarios, I can say that I support defense of property.  It's what is done after the government catches them that I have a dispute with. If some kid is caught throwing an egg at my house, I don't expect or want that kid to be whipped. It's excessive. 
Somewhat unrelated,
You'll find that the Canadian Forces expects its soldiers to be *diplomats* as well as soldiers. How we conduct ourselves in these troubled *countries* will have a tremendous effect that *will* determin the success of the mission. You can talk to civilians, be respectful and conduct yourself appropriately and have them greet you. Or you can push them around on their own streets, stomp on them and have them throw grenades at you when you don't expect it. As a local police officer once told me, you don't always have the juice.


----------



## GO!!! (29 May 2005)

Dare,

Several clarifications from your last post directed my way, first you ask me how I know that these vandals are unemployed, I said "not otherwise gainfully occupied" which for children, would mean homework, chores, boy scouts, church groups, cadets, whatever. My fault, I'll try to use simpler language for you in the future.

Yes, I would rely on the eductors to reform the thought processes of these kids, because teachers spend more time with kids than anyone else, parents included.This is more of a necessity than a best case scenario.

Said it before, now again - CORPORAL PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN USED BY EVERY CIVILISATION IN HISTORY - why? Check my last post. What makes you smarter than 3500 yrs of recorded history?

As for me jumping on the dog pile, you made a vague remark about a conceptual method of rehabilitation - not a pointed solution.

And finally, your little remark about Canadian soldiers being expected to be "diplomats" tells me that you have never been deployed and operate in the realm of the theoretical and possible, not the real and concrete. Canadian soldiers are expected to be well disciplined Canadian soldiers. This discipline and proper interpretation of orders is what makes us excel, not some abstract and easily misinterpreted notion of "diplomacy"

Infanteers have been the first line of contact with the locals in every Canadian military land operation since WWII. There has yet to be a diplomacy PO check added to the ISCC.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Dare,
> 
> Several clarifications from your last post directed my way, first you ask me how I know that these vandals are unemployed, I said "not otherwise gainfully occupied" which for children, would mean homework, chores, boy scouts, church groups, cadets, whatever. My fault, I'll try to use simpler language for you in the future.


I'm afraid that still doesn't add up to knowledge. 


> Yes, I would rely on the eductors to reform the thought processes of these kids, because teachers spend more time with kids than anyone else, parents included.This is more of a necessity than a best case scenario.


Well then, carry on with the status quo. It's funny your solution is to send them back to the very people that trained them to be how they are. What is it they say about insanity? It's doing the same thing and expecting a different result.


> Said it before, now again - CORPORAL PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN USED BY EVERY CIVILISATION IN HISTORY - why? Check my last post. What makes you smarter than 3500 yrs of recorded history?


Makes *me* smarter? As if I'm the only person saying it on earth. How dare I deviate from 3500 years of recorded history? We have about 3300 years of slavery under our belts, how dare anyone seek change.


> As for me jumping on the dog pile, you made a vague remark about a conceptual method of rehabilitation - not a pointed solution.


How is your solution "pointed" and not "conceptual"? I have personally seen my "conceptual" solution *work* in practice. So much for that.


> And finally, your little remark about Canadian soldiers being expected to be "diplomats" tells me that you have never been deployed and operate in the realm of the theoretical and possible, not the real and concrete. Canadian soldiers are expected to be well disciplined Canadian soldiers. This discipline and proper interpretation of orders is what makes us excel, not some abstract and easily misinterpreted notion of "diplomacy"


Ah, yes, the distortion of my words continues. I said diplomats *AS WELL AS* soldiers. Obviously soldiering is the priority, or I would have said soldiers as well as diplomats. In fact I just watched the Honourable Bill Graham on television saying what I said in similar wording. There is nothing "abstract" about diplomacy. Maybe it's a little too complicated and "conceptual" for some, though. 


> Infanteers have been the first line of contact with the locals in every Canadian military land operation since WWII. There has yet to be a diplomacy PO check added to the ISCC.


So?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 May 2005)

Dare,
You are severely confusing "getting beaten" and corporal punishment. They are not the same thing, properly documented and supervised corporal punishment would be a great deterrant.
Lets see what Judge Bruce would do here, 25 hours community service, 500 page essay on how I hurt society by my act and 25 lashes, only to be administered failing any of the above conditions or repeat offences within one year.
I think, no, I KNOW that would be more of a deterrant than custody.....


----------



## canadianblue (29 May 2005)

You know what if my kids ever were to do something which I felt was completely morally wrong and I would just yell at them. Really I'm not going to be slack and have a "live and let live" attitude because I know too many kids with absolutely nothing to live for who have parents that don't punish them. I think your notion that "diplomacy" will always work to stop violence is a flawed one. Kids of today need structure in their lives, not wish washy parents who don't give a shit about what they do. I also know some people who have a fairly flawed view of right and wrong because their parents weren't very good at teaching them any morals, and didn't try to be examples to their kids. Look at my last post and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## GO!!! (29 May 2005)

Dare,
     
     Please provide some evidence of your "concptual notion" working in practice. If you are familiar with endnotes to source your claim, I will follow up. If you've seen it, documentation should'nt be too hard to come by.

The MND is perhaps the least qualified person qualified to state what, exactly soldiers are to do, as the authority to do that is vested in the CDS, and to some extent, the DMND. Also, a source of where the MND made the statement regarding "diplomats" would be nice - see above.

Your statements as to what veterans of past and recent conflicts fought for are lacking in substance without either interviewing an accurate cross section of those veterans or being one yourself, and knowing what it means. 

I noticed you did'nt argue with my statement that you had never been deployed though, so you are building a profile for us after all. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Dare,
> You are severely confusing "getting beaten" and corporal punishment. They are not the same thing, properly documented and supervised corporal punishment would be a great deterrant.


Heheh, I'm really trying not to get them confused, as I was trying to keep on topic, but this topic has since swayed quite a bit.


> Lets see what Judge Bruce would do here, 25 hours community service, 500 page essay on how I hurt society by my act and 25 lashes, only to be administered failing any of the above conditions or repeat offences within one year.
> I think, no, I KNOW that would be more of a deterrant than custody.....


I'm sure it is an effective deterrant. Are we looking for punishment? Or a deterrant? Or.. justice..? The Taliban had many effective deterrants for common criminals, yet even then crime existed. Where is the line drawn?


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> You know what if my kids ever were to do something which I felt was completely morally wrong and I would just yell at them. Really I'm not going to be slack and have a "live and let live" attitude because I know too many kids with absolutely nothing to live for who have parents that don't punish them. I think your notion that "diplomacy" will always work to stop violence is a flawed one. Kids of today need structure in their lives, not wish washy parents who don't give a crap about what they do. I also know some people who have a fairly flawed view of right and wrong because their parents weren't very good at teaching them any morals, and didn't try to be examples to their kids. Look at my last post and you'll see what I mean.


Again, I have not once said that diplomacy will always work, in the case of children or war. Do not confuse structure with violence, or wishy washy as being without violence. A parent with a flawed view of right and wrong is not going to be any better of a parent by hitting their kids. But being a good example.. absolutely I 100% agree with that.


----------



## Dare (30 May 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Dare,
> 
> Please provide some evidence of your "concptual notion" working in practice. If you are familiar with endnotes to source your claim, I will follow up. If you've seen it, documentation should'nt be too hard to come by.


Please reread what I have written. Especially the part where I mention my belief is made upon first hand personal experiences.


> The MND is perhaps the least qualified person qualified to state what, exactly soldiers are to do, as the authority to do that is vested in the CDS, and to some extent, the DMND. Also, a source of where the MND made the statement regarding "diplomats" would be nice - see above.


I'm not sure how the MND's position on something in his jurisdiction is "unqualified", but anyways, this is something I can provide citations for..

"The authority of command and technical proficiency,once considered adequate for Cold War-era leader development, are not enough in today's environment. The CF needs a new type of military professional and leader, one in whom the qualities of the warrior-technician are supplemented with the skills of the soldier-diplomat. The CF needs leaders â â€œ both commis-sioned and non-commissioned â â€œ who are broadly educated, who understand this new interconnected and volatile world, and who are expert in conflict resolution in its broadest sense â â€œ from traditional warfighting to humanitarian and nation-building interventions."

http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/CFLI/engraph/leadership/doc/DND_Conceptual_e.pdf

Search through it. In fact, you might want to read it. It's quite well made.

Stamped official, copyrighted to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2005 with the forward written and material approved by The Man, himself, but you can carry on with your delusion that the CDS is above authority.

Here is the Minister's position. One of the many times he has mentioned it.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1577

"The men and women of the Canadian Forces have always been part warrior, part diplomat, and part aid worker. Some argue this diminishes the â Å“warrior ethicâ ? or renders our troops less effective on the battlefield. Frankly, I disagree. Because, as I have said, in today's world our soldiers must be capable of not just winning wars, but also of contributing to conditions which make it possible for us to secure the peace."


> Your statements as to what veterans of past and recent conflicts fought for are lacking in substance without either interviewing an accurate cross section of those veterans or being one yourself, and knowing what it means.


Oh please.. what I have said is selfevident. Unless there is a ghost army out there readying for war for the right of corporal punishment, veterens didn't fight for that. They fought for freedom. A theme, I believe, you'll find quite commonly used. And you know it.


> I noticed you did'nt argue with my statement that you had never been deployed though, so you are building a profile for us after all. Keep up the good work.


I don't argue with many things, I hesitated driving down this course in the first place, but you can make a game of it if you like.  I'm no longer interested in talking about it. You know what they say about one who assumes?.. enjoy your profiling.  : I'm going to read that manual, it's quite interesting.


----------



## GO!!! (30 May 2005)

Dare,
      I made a comment earlier about people who resided in the abstract and conceptual, and not the real world - as the title of that manual aptly demonstrates, have a good read. 

The speech Bill Graham gave was to the Rotary Club of Toronto, and concentrated on what they wanted to hear. If the only event that he can pull out of the entire Afghan experience for digestion by a philanthropic organisation is that of a toy gun being taken from child - he proved my point that he decides policy and macro decisions - soldiers take care of the rest.

In addition to this, he said "have always been" not "will soon be" so it was one soon to be replaced man's opinion, not doctrine.

As for not going down this road - you're right, you should'nt have. 

And you should even less be professing to tell men who have gone to places like Afghanistan and done missions and lived in a %*&#$ dusty tent the size of a double bed with their fire team partner for six months exactly what they fought for. Because I did, and it sure as hell was'nt so vandals could tag army tents and bleeding hearts like you could tell me that they are just misunderstood. 

So read the Concepts of Leadership manual and think you know what it means to be a soldier. Then set your compass to 3200m and double time.

Rant over  :rage:


----------



## Infanteer (30 May 2005)

So, anyone seen the new Star Wars yet?  I bet you that Anakin was whipped....


----------



## 1feral1 (30 May 2005)

;D Good one mate!


----------



## Marty (30 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, anyone seen the new Star Wars yet?  I bet you that Anakin was whipped....



Yea but didnt he turn out OK  in the end? Oh I forgot its just a movie.


----------



## George Wallace (30 May 2005)

Are we now going to blame the Sith control of 'the Force' on the irresponsible behavior of these vandals?


----------



## Dare (30 May 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Dare,
> I made a comment earlier about people who resided in the abstract and conceptual, and not the real world - as the title of that manual aptly demonstrates, have a good read.
> 
> The speech Bill Graham gave was to the Rotary Club of Toronto, and concentrated on what they wanted to hear. If the only event that he can pull out of the entire Afghan experience for digestion by a philanthropic organisation is that of a toy gun being taken from child - he proved my point that he decides policy and macro decisions - soldiers take care of the rest.
> ...


I love how you ignored what the official leadership manual for the Canadian Forces says about a *NEW* type of military professional.. who's qualities include being a **soldier-diplomat**. With the CDS saying in the Forward that "this is what I expect of Officers, Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers.." Yeah, very slick. Bill Graham also said that on a number of occasions to a number of different audiences. I have been to Rotary Club events, and they're not as "bleeding heart" as you seem to think, just because they like to help people out.. they're good people.. for the most part. Some are just there to help their tax burden..


> And you should even less be professing to tell men who have gone to places like Afghanistan and done missions and lived in a %*&#$ dusty tent the size of a double bed with their fire team partner for six months exactly what they fought for. Because I did, and it sure as heck was'nt so vandals could tag army tents and bleeding hearts like you could tell me that they are just misunderstood.


Hahahahaha, I'm a bleeding heart.. oh, that's rich. There's a first for everything I suppose. 

My words are twisted again. I am quite sure you did not go to Afghanistan for the right to cane vandals. There might have been some other extenuating circumstances that preceeded your arrival.. maybe having to do with a few planes, and a few buildings..? Or maybe you liked the idea of LIBERATING an OPPRESSED people from a TYRANNY which included severe and extreme punishment? I, personally, think both are sufficient. Unless you fancy mutilation and public executions as a preventative measure as well.. Last I checked, Canada was still a DEMOCRACY, and so is Afghanistan now, so it doesn't seem like the end game has changed a whole lot, and if you know what our democracy allows, it allows me (the supposed "bleeding heart"), to say whatever the hell I want (for the most part) and for your personal opinion to be completely overridden by the majority. What say you to that? As I'll say again. Just because you SUPPORT something, does not mean you FOUGHT for it.


----------



## GO!!! (30 May 2005)

Dare,

I quit, you are obviously more in tune with my reasons for my actions than I am, I congratulate you on your ESP. 

I would suggest that unless you actually join the army and experience the "warrior ethos" that you do not profess to know what it entails or means. As others have pointed out in my occasionally scathing posts, it is only to easy to critisize from the comfort of a home office. 

After reading many of your other posts, you do seem to be a slightly more sophisticated version of the average invertabrate troller. 

Once you put on a uniform, even once, you will be eminently more qualified than you are now to profess to "know" what the military does and why. And as for the support vs fight? I did both, did'nt see you there.

May your house be vandalised next.

OUT. 
*end participation in this thread*


----------



## old medic (30 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> I do believe that corporal punishment, in general, is "Extreme harshness or severity; rigor." Tyranny is not always dressed in a swastika or a hammer and scythe. Whipping is pretty severe and harsh, I'm sure you can at least admit to that.



I will say that I think whipping is harsher than what laws currently allow for. I also think current penalties are weak and ineffective.
In any reference to Canadian justice, I do not consider it as having been tyranny.


----------



## old medic (30 May 2005)

Does anyone know who owned, or who's collection the half-track came from?


----------



## jmacleod (30 May 2005)

There is always the fact that military displays, historic graveyards, restored artifacts, fortresses etc,
the list is long, will be defaced by vandals - many, many graveyards in NS, dating back to the early
1700's have been defaced and grave markers very badly damaged - it is a matter of significant
concern, but the solution appears to be somewhat complex. A revised Statute of Canada, the
Criminal Code defines such acts, determines a process of prosecution and determines a punishment,
which is the perogative of a Provincial court. Some impose harsh penalities, some, particularly in the
metro areas do not. Defacement of memoriials, particularly military generated historic monuments
is usually caused by "persons unknown" who are drunk. I do not believe there is any historic
significance to a act of overt vandalism; most who cause such damage have in common a degree
of profound ignorance, which is somewhat helpful when serving time in a NS Provincial goal, for
at least a year or longer. A friend of mine, sadly departed was a Naval Airman who was invalided
out of the Canadian Navy due to polio. He went through law school in his wheel chair, had a successful
law practice, continued to fly (with hand controls for the rudder) and was appointed a Provincial Court 
Judge - if you were a vandal, convicted in his court, your fate was sealed. He had, one might say,a
strong sense of right and wrong. MacLeod


----------

