# CANSOFCOM encounter with a civilian in Port Hawkesbury, N.S.



## cudmore (14 Nov 2013)

This is getting a lot of comment traffic on our website.   The story leads to some interesting questions about how CANSOFCOM manages it's public-facing self.   
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/politics/story/1.2426280

Mysterious military exercise leads to gruff encounter

Small-town military exercise cloaked in secrecy led to man being questioned for taking photos

James Cudmore CBC News

A man with a camera who stumbled on a military special forces exercise in a small Cape Breton town had his patriotism gruffly questioned by an undercover soldier, and was quizzed about whether he belonged to an anti-government movement. 

Robert Westbrook said he was also threatened with arrest and he worried the undercover soldier would lash out and strike him.

"He takes a few steps back and clenches his fist and jaw angrily," Westbrook wrote in an account he posted online. " I truly think for a moment that he's going to take a swing at me."

Westbrook, 46, lives in Port Hawkesbury, N.S., on Cape Breton Island. The town of 3,366 is the last place Westbrook says he'd expect to run into undercover Canadian special forces troops participating in an exercise.

But that's what happened the night of Oct. 25, when Westbrook was confronted by two soldiers dressed in civilian clothes who demanded to know who he was and why he had a camera.

The military has refused an interview on the incident, and only responded to CBC News queries about the incident after several calls and emails and six days of waiting.

Official stone-walling notwithstanding, CBC News has come to learn the exercise included members of Canadian Special Operations Force Command, or CANSOFCOM, as it’s called, and likely included members of the special operations and counterterrorism unit Joint Task Force II.

'Quite strange'
JTF2 is a highly-secretive unit, and its activities are most often kept under wraps by the government. 

Their work has included hunting Taliban leaders and bomb makers in Afghanistan, as well providing military close protection to high-ranking government officials in war zones overseas, including the prime minister.

The unit’s soldiers make up a so-called force of last resort in Canada if ever the country is threatened by violent extremist attack or terrorism.

Although the Port Hawkesbury exercise featured Canadian special operations soldiers, it’s believed the two soldiers who confronted Westbrook were not elite assaulters, but supporting troops.


A truck that unloaded at a normally abandoned call centre in Port Hawkesbury, NS. (Robert Westbrook)

One soldier identified himself as a military policeman, although he was not clothed in the standard military police black uniform or cherry red beret. The other soldier called himself "Adam," and said he was running security for the military "training evolution" that was taking place at that abandoned call centre, just two blocks from Westbrook's house.

Westbrook told CBC News he went down to check out the unusual activity at the abandoned call centre.

"There was quite a bit of activity. So, we thought this was quite strange," he said.

No sign of military exercise
The call centre was a town landmark that once employed as many as 300 locals, but it has been closed for a couple of years.​

Now the only activity in the almost 10,000-square-metre office block was a small military recruiting office. But that couldn't account for the 50 or 60 civilian cars and trucks Westbrook said he saw that night.

Westbrook is a freelance photographer, and started taking pictures.

After a few minutes, Westbrook says the first soldier drove up and identified himself as military policeman.

"It puzzled me to no end because ... there was no evidence of any military involvement, there were no signs stating that, no announcement to the public that there was going to be an exercise here. There was no one in uniform, and no military vehicles at all."

Westbrook says he told the officer that he was just there to take some pictures.

'Asked if I was a patriot'
About seven minutes later, Westbrook says, a soldier called "Adam" burst onto the scene demanding to know who Westbrook was and why he was taking pictures.  

Westbrook says he was on public property throughout the encounter and wasn't breaking any laws.

He recorded the conversation on his iPod.

Westbrook says he told "Adam” he was a freelance photographer.

"He immediately got more aggressive and asked if I was patriotic, which I thought was quite a strange question, and I didn't really answer that because I didn't think it was relevant, and I said so.”

According to the recording, "Adam" then dropped the name of the local RCMP detachment commander, Sgt. Shelby Miller, who he said was a "good friend," with whom he was in "direct contact."

"So, I don't want to call Shelby Miller and have him come down here and deal with this," "Adam" said.

Westbrook said he viewed this exchange as a threat of arrest. It got his back up and, as a result, Westbrook says he dug in his heels.

"I was quite insulted by that because I wasn't breaking the law and I was fully aware that I wasn't breaking the law. At that point [“Adam”] got quite visibly upset. I thought he might actually punch me."

Westbrook edited down a seven-minute version of his audio recording and posted it on YouTube. It's been viewed nearly 7,000 times.

The recording shows "Adam" returning to that question about Westbrook's patriotism.

"Clearly, you're not patriotic, " he said, before turning to a new tack:  “Are you here as some sort of anti-government movement?" he said.

"Adam" eventually walked away, and so did Westbrook.

'Committed to positive community relations'
Westbrook says politically he's "middle of the road," and at least as patriotic as the next person.

"If by patriotism you define that as love of one's country, yeah, I would say I am patriotic. I love Canada. That is why I chose to become a citizen here."

Westbrook was an American who married a Canadian woman and became a citizen in August.

But the encounter with soldiers of his new country's army left him shaking his head about the professionalism of those who planned the secret exercise.


A bus that unloaded into a normally empty parking lot in Port Hawkesbury, NS. (Robert Westbrook)

"It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense that they would be interested in that level of secrecy and yet expect no reaction when they locate themselves in a call centre that has been a major employer over the past decade in the area and expect people to not ask questions."

Miller, the RCMP detachment commander, says he was aware the military exercise was taking place, but that he's not friends with "Adam."

"Never met the man," Miller said.

In the end, defence officials provided a brief written statement.

"The Military Police are firmly committed to positive community relations," the statement said.

"Additional training will now be afforded to unit members involved to better prepare them for situations of this nature."


----------



## FJAG (14 Nov 2013)

I've seen/heard the video (heard because much of it is just audio) and find very little wrong with the MP's here. The one question about "are you a patriot?" was a little out of left-field but generally they treated him politely and with respect. 

Based on the photographers comments back to them I have formed the opinion that he was being a bit dramatic when he says that he felt that the individual "clenched" his fist and jaw and that further he felt he was about to be hit. The MP's tone both before and after this alleged motion certainly didn't sound aggressive. 

All-in-all a lot of drama over what in my opinion was a very benign event.

 :cheers:


----------



## JorgSlice (14 Nov 2013)

Neato.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I've seen/heard the video (heard because much of it is just audio) and find very little wrong with the MP's here. The one question about "are you a patriot?" was a little out of left-field but generally they treated him politely and with respect.
> 
> Based on the photographers comments back to them I have formed the opinion that he was being a bit dramatic when he says that he felt that the individual "clenched" his fist and jaw and that further he felt he was about to be hit. The MP's tone both before and after this alleged motion certainly didn't sound aggressive.
> 
> ...



Just to add to this, since I joined the CF many of my civvy coworkers and friends have said I sound more authoritative and aggressive than I did before I joined. I never noticed a change. Could be that we're used to it. 

I do have to say when CANSOFCOM/JTF2 are involved and its a guarded secret, they have every right to be suspicious of people lurking nearby.


----------



## Pte. Jay (14 Nov 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Neato.
> 
> Just to add to this, since I joined the CF many of my civvy coworkers and friends have said I sound more authoritative and aggressive than I did before I joined. I never noticed a change. Could be that we're used to it.
> 
> I do have to say when CANSOFCOM/JTF2 are involved and its a guarded secret, they have every right to be suspicious of people lurking nearby.



I'm not in the military, so I'm not used to the more authoritative tone, and I can say that they both sounded fairly polite (especially the MP). It is however true that some of the points Adam was making sounded pretty intimidating, and the RCMP Detachment statement was way out of line, but I can understand their concern.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Nov 2013)

JayB said:
			
		

> I'm not in the military, so I'm not used to the more authoritative tone, and I can say that they both sounded fairly polite (especially the MP). It is however true that some of the points Adam was making sounded pretty intimidating, and the RCMP Detachment statement was way out of line, but I can understand their concern.



How's the RCMP comment out of line? The RCMP was likely aware of the training exercise and aware that the members of whatever unit was there do not appreciate photographs being taken of their training. The military member (if that who he was) didn't want to get into a confrontation, and thought the easiest way to resolve the issue was to mention calling the police. If that photographer was there for nefarious purposes, he wouldn't want the RCMP to show up and probably would have taken off. Issue resolved. If the guy wasn't doing anything wrong, then why worry about the RCMP?


----------



## cupper (14 Nov 2013)

One thing to remember is that according to the article, the recording was edited down by the Photog, so there could be some pertinent info that was left out of that presented.

Having said that, it seems to me that Westbrook may be creating a tempest in a teapot, and is guilty of being a little sensitive in being challenged by members of the military. Nothing he said was incorrect, and he wasn't breaking any laws (except maybe local loitering bylaws). Fine. But to describe this as a potential situation where violence could have resulted, maybe he was a tad over the top. [overly dramatic sarcasm] Just a tad. [/overly dramatic sarcasm]

I think that "Adam" could have handled things a little better as well. The whole patriotic line was bogus. He could have simply explained that the exercise included persons whose identity needed to be protected (which he did after the patriotic line) and that they would prefer that if Westbrook continued to photograph, ask that he not photograph faces of those involved. He could have asked to review the photos afterwards to ensure that nothing of a sensitive nature was captured.

But overall, I think this is a Shakespearian Much Ado About Nothing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Nov 2013)

Fight.... rudeness  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2013)

cudmore said:
			
		

> ... were not elite assaulters, but supporting troops.


Ahhh.....say no more.


----------



## Sf2 (15 Nov 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ahhh.....say no more.



Nice.... :


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2013)

Well said Cupper.  The MP should have dealt with the matter a little more diplomatically, as should have "Adam".  These are the types of people who cause bad publicity incidents like this to get attention.  It is unfortunate that such people do become associated with the SOF community from time to time.  We had a similar incident with a "MP" pulling such a stunt on a uniformed Coyote Crew who had set up a Traffic Control Point in the vicinity of 'the Hill' during a 'publicized' military exercise in Eastern Ontario.  There are such people in all Trades, who sometimes inflate their importance more than it really is.  It looks like this may be the case here for all parties concerned, including the civilian.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2013)

Nothing screams low visibility like telling people THERES NOTHING TO SEE HERE and acting like a secret agent.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Nothing screams low visibility like telling people THERES NOTHING TO SEE HERE and acting like a secret agent.



LOL

So true.  Had that happen to us playing OPFOR in Kingston.  Guy from Base, sitting on steps of Transient Qtrs asked one of the guys if we were JTF.  When he was told "No", it didn't stop him from spreading the rumour that "JTF was in town".


----------



## lawandorder (15 Nov 2013)

Anyone have the link to the video?


----------



## Remius (15 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> So true.  Had that happen to us playing OPFOR in Kingston.  Guy from Base, sitting on steps of Transient Qtrs asked one of the guys if we were JTF.  When he was told "No", it didn't stop him from spreading the rumour that "JTF was in town".



George, it might also mean that you guys needed haircuts... ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Nov 2013)

If you really want to see threats of violence, acts of intimidation and violation of Charter Rights etc, go to the Micmac Mall tax-free shopping event before Christmas.   Last time I was there, I was body-checked by an elderly lady at the Stokes store.  I guess she REALLY want that fondue set that was on sale.

No one was there to report on how *I* was offended and make sure I didn't have any boo-boo's.   :'(


Video Link

Just a point, the dude with the camera DID identify himself as "a professional photographer" and used the word "documentary".  Not quite the same as saying "I am just a local and was out for a walk, thought I'd snap a few pics.  What you guys doin'?"

So, IMO, he was the first one to get his knickers in the knot.  I'm not sure how many 'professional photographers' live in that area and are wandering around at night on the side of the road doin' their thing.  I'm going to guess *zero*.

In his video (54 sec mark), he comments that he was out to take pictures of the building (at night) for an employer he was hopeful was coming to his town.  Groovy.  According to the video he went on to record, those would have been some kick-ass photo's in the dark of a building.  

Sorry but I'm of the opinion that buddy was just plain ol curious and grabbed his camera.  After the MP spoke to him, he 'walked up and down the street taking pictures for about 7 minutes" according to his video comments.  Doesn't really make sense with his other comment on the youtube page where he says "I had no clue this was a military exercise until the guard told me. If I'd known what it was, I wouldn't have gone over there with a camera."  Hard to believe that when after he DID find out, he kept on snapping.

People are too thin-skinned these days.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> George, it might also mean that you guys needed haircuts... ;D



Well.....We were ordered not to shave a couple of weeks earlier.   ;D


----------



## M Feetham (15 Nov 2013)

I havn't seen/heard the video and this is actually the first i have heard of it. My questions are 1. If there was an MP on the scene why did this Adam guy get involved at all. Surely the MP could have handled it. 2. When there is some sort of exercise going on that could be seen by the public there is normally some sort of heads up given to the media or at least local law enforcement. Did any of that happen? I can't really comment on anything else.


----------



## Teager (15 Nov 2013)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> I havn't seen/heard the video and this is actually the first i have heard of it. My questions are 1. If there was an MP on the scene why did this Adam guy get involved at all. Surely the MP could have handled it. 2. When there is some sort of exercise going on that could be seen by the public there is normally some sort of heads up given to the media or at least local law enforcement. Did any of that happen? I can't really comment on anything else.



Thats part of the exercise to do it so quietly that no one in the public even notices   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2013)

The RCMP, according to the article, did know about it.  The same would be said about the Municipal Office and the owner of the building.   There may have even been a tiny ad in the local papers.  You know the type of ad that no one reads and ignores when skimming through the news.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Nov 2013)

If you are exercising in public, you better expect your picture to be taken these days and up on Youtube a few minutes later.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2013)

For ex's like this it may be mutually beneficial to work along side local reserve regiments.  Have them set up VCPs and cordon off the area, no?



> What's going on? We're just setting up a practice road block and practice security cordon or something, I don't know much information.. but what I CAN tell you is all about this C7 rifle, I'll talk your ear off for the next 3 hours about it! Where are you going?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Nov 2013)

*magical*


----------



## Danjanou (15 Nov 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> For ex's like this it may be mutually beneficial to work along side local reserve regiments.  Have them set up VCPs and cordon off the area, no?



Hey make it hyper realistic and not warn the troopies in the reserve unit about it beforehand (just a fwew key pers). Then spring a fan out on them on Friday night or Saturday telling them there is a real aid to civil power/ COIN emergency and see how many actually show up as opposed to the " I can't come in, I have a test to study for."  I mean how many do you really need  for  VCP?  >


----------



## cupper (15 Nov 2013)

You know, if they had done this in a major urban center, it may have gone completely unnoticed. 

Hold it in Port Hawkesbury or any small Canadian town where everyone knows everybody else (maybe dating their good looking cousin ;D ), the CFA's will stand out like fly poop in salt.


----------



## MPHopeful13 (15 Nov 2013)

From the POV of a civilian, I think that the photographer was way out of line. He was told more than once that CAF were on site, that the identities of those involved weren't public knowledge, etc. When the second guy, Adam, asked that he stop, he should have stopped, regardless of whether or not he was violating any laws. His comments calling the men "undercover soldiers" were, quite frankly, ridiculous, seeing as one man clearly identified himself as an MP. After being informed that a training exercise was being held by the CAF, he had the information that he wanted, therefore, he should have left and let the men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis for him to be able to have those rights and freedoms he mentioned, train to protect our country, so he, and people like him, can continue being a thorn in the side of hardworking soldiers, sailors, and airmen, by quoting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to justify their, again, being frank, annoying actions. That's just my  :2c:.

Edit: Spelling.


----------



## Robert0288 (15 Nov 2013)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Hey make it hyper realistic and not warn the troopies in the reserve unit about it beforehand (just a fwew key pers). Then spring a fan out on them on Friday night or Saturday telling them there is a real aid to civil power/ COIN emergency and see how many actually show up as opposed to the " I can't come in, I have a test to study for."  I mean how many do you really need  for  VCP?  >



You sir, are a goddamn evil individual, knowing full well that 1/2 the Regt will kill the other 1/2 to get on that tasking.  >


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> For ex's like this it may be mutually beneficial to work along side local reserve regiments.  Have them set up VCPs and cordon off the area, no?



And so the Regimental history begins:

Year +1: Remember that crappy exercise where we just stood around on the streets and did nothing?

Year +3: Remember that time we were 500m away from the special forces exercise?

Year +7: Remember when we helped out JTF-2?

Year +12: Yes, I was there supporting JTF-2 on their secret mission.

Year +15: Of course, I can't really talk about my time with the special forces, but I was there.  Keeping it real.


(Note: Year to year progressions may be accelerated by alcohol and proximity of attractive members of the opposite sex.)


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2013)

Ah yes, the older I get, the better I was.  Universally true.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2013)

Like a fine wine.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the older I get, the better I was.  Universally true.


Or, as the country song says, "I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was!"  ;D


----------



## cupper (15 Nov 2013)

A legend in his own mind. :nod:


----------



## Strike (15 Nov 2013)

Love how the photographer goes on about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  You want to play that game?  Show me your media credentials.  Oh, don't have any?  Let me talk to you about the Privacy Act.  He can go right ahead and take his photos but, without those credentials that show these photos are being taken for news/media, he can't go posting anything that would identify these soldiers.  That would be an invasion of their privacy.

(Note - Any media photos I've ever seen of JTF2 has always had the faces blurred out.  REAL media tend to be very cooperative in that regard.)

Also love how his ratings and comments have been disabled on the youtube video.

Edited to add:  A quick online search brings up no published media by this man (aside from his internet site design company?) other than videos through social media which leads me to believe that he is not even a freelance photographer and does it as a hobby.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2013)

If you are in a public space you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  And public officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy when acting in that capacity.

And "real" media, as you put it, know that they must play by whatever stupid rules are put in pace to maintain access.  Pissing off your sources results in those sources drying up.  Hence how many news reports refer to "senior officials" rather that identifying by name those speaking.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you are in a public space you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.



Were those soldiers in public space or on private property? We know the photographer was on public property as he stated numerous times, but those individuals he was taking pictures of seem to be on private property.


----------



## Strike (15 Nov 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Were those soldiers in public space or on private property? We know the photographer was on public property as he stated numerous times, but those individuals he was taking pictures of seem to be on private property.



If the photos were taken on private property or of private property there is a reasonable expectation of privacy unless there is an extenuating circumstance that says otherwise.  For a reporter they could say that the event is newsworthy, which would be considered a reasonable circumstance (since who are we to say what is or isn't newsworthy).  Hence my remark about proof that this person is a member of the press. Even freelance photogs and reporters have recognized credentials.


----------



## Nudibranch (16 Nov 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> People are too thin-skinned these days.



That would include the CAF pers talking to him, though. I agree their tone was polite, but come on - name-dropping the RCMP det commander's name and calling him a close friend? First, a laughably thin intimidation tactic more suitable to use by entitled idiots trying to get into fancy restaurants by name-dropping the chef, and second, the det cmdr's follow-up (never heard of the guy) is a black mark against the CAF, as he basically tells the public the CAF dude full out lied. And was stupid enough to be taped lying. Nice.

Come on, small town, abandoned building - someone failed to plan if they didn't realize it would arouse curiosity, and these days curiosity=smartphone pics, at the very least. You want your special people unphotographed, keep their exercises within military areas, or at least where civs walking around on public property can't start taking pics of them. As for public/private - I can stand on the street and take pics of my neighborhood, most of which (houses/yards/people in these yards) is in fact private property. As long as I'm not using telephoto lenses to peek into your bedroom through your windows, I'm not breaking any laws.


----------



## Swingline1984 (16 Nov 2013)

The fact that he (the photographer) initiated a voice recording prior to any interaction with personnel makes me think he knew damn well what was going on in the area (most likely through a PAFFO release especially if he is "freelance" media) and showed up with the intent to force an altercation.  Unfortunately Adam took the bait and handled the situation pretty poorly.  My guess is he failed to read the prepared lines from the PAFFO and really didn't know how to handle the situation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Nov 2013)

Name dropping the RCMP boss almost comes across as collusion and could imply the RCMP are in the pocket of the CF.

On the bright side the soldiers peers will probably be happy when the duty rooster for December comes out.


----------



## Ownslice (16 Nov 2013)

There is no way he was there about anything other then flashing lights.
Typical bored nosey guy with a camera in a tiny town.

Isn't everyone a photographer these days?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Name dropping the RCMP boss almost comes across as collusion and could implie the RCMP are in the pocket of the CF.



 ???

Perhaps brown nosing social climber, but collusion.....??

So much wrong with this story and video on all sides.  Anyone question the fact that this is the middle of the night, poor lighting, etc.  The video really doesn't show much of anything.


----------



## Swingline1984 (16 Nov 2013)

Ownslice said:
			
		

> There is no way he was there about anything other then flashing lights.
> Typical bored nosey guy with a camera in a tiny town.
> 
> Isn't everyone a photographer these days?



Believe what you will, but I'm more inclined to think there are two sides to every story and that the photog wasn't entirely innocent although I'd be loathe to challenge his patriotism.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2013)

Nudibranch said:
			
		

> That would include the CAF pers talking to him, though. I agree their tone was polite, but come on - name-dropping the RCMP det commander's name and calling him a close friend? First, a laughably thin intimidation tactic more suitable to use by entitled idiots trying to get into fancy restaurants by name-dropping the chef, and second, the det cmdr's follow-up (never heard of the guy) is a black mark against the CAF, as he basically tells the public the CAF dude full out lied. And was stupid enough to be taped lying. Nice.
> 
> Come on, small town, abandoned building - someone failed to plan if they didn't realize it would arouse curiosity, and these days curiosity=smartphone pics, at the very least. You want your special people unphotographed, keep their exercises within military areas, or at least where civs walking around on public property can't start taking pics of them. As for public/private - I can stand on the street and take pics of my neighborhood, most of which (houses/yards/people in these yards) is in fact private property. As long as I'm not using telephoto lenses to peek into your bedroom through your windows, I'm not breaking any laws.



That is why I said people.   ;D  Not "civies".


----------



## Pte. Jay (16 Nov 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How's the RCMP comment out of line? The RCMP was likely aware of the training exercise and aware that the members of whatever unit was there do not appreciate photographs being taken of their training. The military member (if that who he was) didn't want to get into a confrontation, and thought the easiest way to resolve the issue was to mention calling the police. If that photographer was there for nefarious purposes, he wouldn't want the RCMP to show up and probably would have taken off. Issue resolved. If the guy wasn't doing anything wrong, then why worry about the RCMP?


It was out of line IMO because as of that point the guy, Adam, had just approached the photographer and hadn't even suggested he stop photographing. I understand that elite CANSOFCOM soldiers aren't likely to be the best PR guys but you can understand the concern of the photographer in that respect.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2013)

JayB said:
			
		

> It was out of line IMO because as of that point the guy, Adam, had just approached the photographer dude and hadn't even suggested he stop photographing. I understand that elite CANSOFCOM soldiers aren't likely to be the best PR guys but you can understand the concern of the photographer  dude in that respect.



He isn't a photographer.  He is some local dude with a camera.


----------



## Shed (16 Nov 2013)

Strike said:
			
		

> If the photos were taken on private property or of private property there is a reasonable expectation of privacy unless there is an extenuating circumstance that says otherwise.  For a reporter they could say that the event is newsworthy, which would be considered a reasonable circumstance (since who are we to say what is or isn't newsworthy).  Hence my remark about proof that this person is a member of the press. Even freelance photogs and reporters have recognized credentials.



From the information provided, or what I've read of it, I would say that there was no expectation of privacy and therefore this fellow was free to take photos at will.  So long as he stayed on public property.  As for how everyone handled themselves, military and civilian, that's another matter.

I come across this on two fronts, I'm retired CAF and I'm an amateur photographer.  I've had to familiarize myself with the laws in Ontario and the Maritimes when it comes to taking pictures in public spaces.  To oversimplify it, even on your own private property, in certain circumstances, you may have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  if you're clearly visible from a public space than someone will not normally be charged if they take a photo that you're captured in.  There are many exceptions to that; I.e. photos for commercial purposes (Google Street View), or if someone is harassing/stalking you, or trying to embarrass you,etc.  You could have a thousand different discussions on a thousand different scenarios - hence why I'm grossly oversimplifying.  But suffice to say there is no blanket law that prohibits an individual from taking a picture of someone on private property.  Depends on the circumstances; and such laws are normally at the municipal or provincial level; and so long as they're not involved in Criminal Code of Canada, 162. (1): (“Criminal Voyeurism”).  Nice aide-memoirs here http://ambientlight.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ontario-Photography-Laws-V1.0.pdf

The circumstances here, as I've read them, are that public officials (DND/CAF), not private individuals, were going about the course of their duties in view of a public street/property.  You'd be hard pressed to find any judge, or cop, who'd say that any individual could not take pictures.  Only mitigating factor might be if he had to get himself into some weird position (up in a tree in a public park, or put his camera on a long pole to see over a fence or into a window) to see something which he couldn't conventionally see from the public space; and that doesn't seem to be the case here.

A few years ago, I was returning from dropping someone off at a restricted facility in Ottawa, for a midnight shift.  I passed by a field that just happened to have an awesome unobstructed sight line with a full moon that was low in the sky.  I pulled my vehicle far off the shoulder of the road, engaged my hazard lights.  Got out with my camera/tripod and setup for a shot.  The wired fence, colour of sky, yadda yadda yadda, made for a nice picture.  After a few minutes a Ottawa City Police cruiser stops to check me out.  I present my ID, state what I'm doing, mention that yes I know that the land beyond the fence is DND no-trespassing property, I'm retired military and familiar with the NDA which is why I stayed on public property and didn't point my camera at the buildings, etc.   I politely point out that I 'believe' I'm on public property, so while I understand why he stopped, I asked if I'm doing anything wrong.  He stalled for a few minutes and took my licence.  I presumed to run the plates/ID.  After a few minutes another cruiser pulls up with another officer, who asks the same questions - to which I reply the same answers and again ask if I'm doing anything wrong.  These guys were both kind of young, but since they are the same rank, and I was actually pretty sure that the first officer had more seniority, I was curious as to why the second officer.  They must have sensed my patience was running out, because in the midst of the chatter they let me know that he's an ex MP; and they're debating whether to call Ottawa's MP detachment.  I had to ask that since they agree I was on public and NOT DND property what lawful authority did they expect the MPs to have in the matter?  To their credit the MPs refused to respond.  After about 20 minutes, they thanked me for my patience and time, and I genuinely thanked them for being observant and doing their jobs, and we all wrapped it up and went our separate ways.  

A fairly uneventful encounter - but if it had gone any further I would have become more than a little perturbed, and asked them to either charge me, or leave me to go about  my business.  Since I'm a citizen on a public space who they couldn't seem to find anything illegal about my activity.  Now of course they could have been idiots and told me to stop loitering with my vehicle, or probably another 1/2 dozen highway act/municipal reasons to move my car - but they didn't.  Common sense prevailed, but I wonder if I hadn't had +20years in the forces, pretty much talked their lingo and I'm pretty sure they could tell that I wasn't intimidated by the uniforms or when the ex-MP mentioned the NDA trespassing regulations - which I countered with the fact that I was on the wrong side of the fence for them to be having that discussion with me about - I smiled, he smiled (but I don't think his thoughts were happy ones). Most civilians would likely have been intimidated into moving along faster.  

Yes - you (not you specifically Strike) could argue that people taking pictures near defence installations or soldiers/cops are asking for trouble, but that's not the point.  The point is that if someones not in violation of the law they should not be fearful of their police/military.  HOWEVER, I find nothing wrong with engaging such people to remind them that they are close to private/DND property, so please confine their activities outside those property lines.  The patriotism slag was an unfortunate one; and highly unnecessary.  Questioning the patriotism of someone over such a matter is trivial at best, and at worst it reinforces many civilians fear that we're becoming too much like Uncle Sam.  I'd have been hard pressed not to shove my telephoto lens up that guys  … where the sun don't shine.

Personally, even if I'm going to take a picture of something as benign as lovely flowers that are on someones property, even if I'm on a public street/sidewalk, I'll usually ask them first.  Not really necessary, but a nice neighbourly thing to do.  Also a nice icebreaker for meeting the neighbours.


----------



## Pte. Jay (16 Nov 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> He isn't a photographer.  He is some local dude with a camera.


He may have been, but he identified himself in the video as a professional photographer, probably one of the reasons he was dealt with the way he was...


----------



## X Royal (16 Nov 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> He isn't a photographer.  He is some local dude with a camera.





			
				JayB said:
			
		

> He may have been, but he identified himself in the video as a professional photographer, probably one of the reasons he was dealt with the way he was...


And what difference does it make legally if he is a professional photographer or not.
Professional photographers have no extra legal rights or any less than the general public.


----------



## Sf2 (16 Nov 2013)

Situation aside,

What concerns me more is that the actual author of this news article posted this topic to the forum....perhaps looking to garner a "army-biased" response?

Interesting to say the least.


----------



## kratz (16 Nov 2013)

SF2 said:
			
		

> Situation aside,
> 
> What concerns me more is that the actual author of this news article posted this topic to the forum....perhaps looking to garner a "army-biased" response?
> 
> Interesting to say the least.



Agreed.

If you review Cudmore's posting history, most of his posts are self-supporting, single entry to generate discussion on topics he is or has covered.


----------



## x_para76 (16 Nov 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> You know, if they had done this in a major urban center, it may have gone completely unnoticed.
> 
> Hold it in Port Hawkesbury or any small Canadian town where everyone knows everybody else (maybe dating their good looking cousin ;D ), the CFA's will stand out like fly poop in salt.


CANSOFCOM has conducted training here in Hamilton a number of times and to the best of my knowledge it was never created an issue. They have even conducted portions of their breacher's course here and all though they had a lot of co-operation from the police it was never made the news. 

That being said there are probably enough gun shots and explosions in Hamilton that people wouldn't have thought it was anything out of the norm.


----------



## cudmore (16 Nov 2013)

Hi Strike,

I'm a long-time reporter, and as far as I know, none of what you say below is supported by law.  
There's no such thing as media credientials -- not regulation-based, anyway -- although you might see ISAF credentials issued to western reporters in a place like Afghanistan.
I wear a press pass in Parliament, but that's to get me in the building.  It's not an assesment of my status as a reporter.  That's all up to my boss.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Love how the photographer goes on about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  You want to play that game?  Show me your media credentials.  Oh, don't have any?  Let me talk to you about the Privacy Act.  He can go right ahead and take his photos but, without those credentials that show these photos are being taken for news/media, he can't go posting anything that would identify these soldiers.  That would be an invasion of their privacy.


----------



## cudmore (16 Nov 2013)

HI Puckchaser, 
My understanding is the issue of public vs private applies in a situation like this to the photographer.  If he's on public property, anything he can see is legally "public."  He'd not be snopping unless he was interfering in someone's reasonable expectation of privacy (in their bedroom with the curtains drawn).
Bottom line: If you are outside, that's public.




			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Were those soldiers in public space or on private property? We know the photographer was on public property as he stated numerous times, but those individuals he was taking pictures of seem to be on private property.


----------



## cudmore (16 Nov 2013)

HI SF2, 

As a memeber of this forum, I read and post things that i think will be of interest to its members. The fact that we're on to page 3 of comments here indicates i did not get that wrong.
Am I interested in what people have to say about my story? Sure. And that is particularly true in this case. 
But that's also true in the case of every posting here. If we weren't intersted in what others thought, why would we be posting here, to beak off?
In any event, I think what you might really be feeling is that you don't trust that I'm not out to scare up some sort of snarky follow to  my piece.
Trust me. I'm not.
Imagine what such a piece would look like: 
"An unidientified poster on an internet fourm  popular with soldiers who identified himself as 'Danajou,' disagreed with Westbrook's handling of affairs."
Not the sort of thing you'd see in the paper.










			
				SF2 said:
			
		

> Situation aside,
> 
> What concerns me more is that the actual author of this news article posted this topic to the forum....perhaps looking to garner a "army-biased" response?
> 
> Interesting to say the least.


----------



## cudmore (16 Nov 2013)

Argh!
Are you kidding?
I've posted like, four stories  of the zillions I've written over the years I've been a member.
And everyone's post here is designed to generate discussion. If  I'm not wrong, that's the whole (word edited) point of a web forum.



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> If you review Cudmore's posting history, most of his posts are self-supporting, single entry to generate discussion on topics he is or has covered.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Nov 2013)

Cudmore,
Don't worry about it, keep posting.

If you could make everyone happy then you'd be boring......
Bruce
army.ca Staff


----------



## Journeyman (16 Nov 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Cudmore,
> Don't worry about it, keep posting.



 :ditto:

You'll see lots of posters with opinions here;  sadly, not all of them have_ informed_ opinions.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Nov 2013)

Opinions are much like assholes.  Everybody's got one, and most are full of shit.


----------



## cudmore (16 Nov 2013)

Good folks all around.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Nov 2013)

Let's keep it civil everyone.......


Milnet.ca Mentor


----------



## Strike (16 Nov 2013)

cudmore said:
			
		

> Hi Strike,
> 
> I'm a long-time reporter, and as far as I know, none of what you say below is supported by law.
> There's no such thing as media credientials -- not regulation-based, anyway -- although you might see ISAF credentials issued to western reporters in a place like Afghanistan.
> I wear a press pass in Parliament, but that's to get me in the building.  It's not an assesment of my status as a reporter.  That's all up to my boss.



Oh I know, but it's more a matter of calling this guy out.  Someone who enjoys photography does not a professional photog make and spouting about Charter rights just makes me question his claim of being a pro even more (which is why I searched for any work of his online to no avail - but I never checked fauxtography.com  ;D).

As for a "reasonable expectation of privacy," examples are given in the Privacy Act, but they are just that, examples.  It could be argued that having a cordon, security or police sitting on the edge of the property would be a sign that the occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Could the supporting guys have handled it better?  Of course.  Not disputing that.  But I listen to the video and just want to shake my head at the originator.  His tone was righteous and arrogant the second someone questioned what he was doing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Nov 2013)

Mr Cudmore in light of the discussion here how do you feel about what happened?

While perhaps not insinuating it happened with this story, do you think more and more people these days are approaching police/military with cameras rolling and attempting to elicit some kind of response to either make it to the news or to blog/vlog about?

I'm in agreement with Strike, it sounded like the guy had a canned response prepared and was just waiting for it. Kinda reminds me of professional soccer in a way.


I found the discussion about if/when people can have their picture taken very interesting. I absolutely hate having my picture taken without permission and especially having people add my picture to their facebook.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Nov 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I absolutely hate having my picture taken without permission and especially having people add my picture to their facebook.


It's the price you pay for being so studly.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Nov 2013)

Strike said:
			
		

> As for a "reasonable expectation of privacy," examples are given in the Privacy Act, but they are just that, examples.  It could be argued that having a cordon, security or police sitting on the edge of the property would be a sign that the occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy.



To the contrary - once you've got a large group of public officers in a place, the expectation of privacy decreases - there's obviously something of public interest going on there.


----------



## mariomike (17 Nov 2013)

This may be of interest to the discussion. 

"There is no law in Canada that prevents a member of the public from taking photographs or video in a public place (other than some limitations related to sensitive defense installations)"
http://blog.privacylawyer.ca/2012/08/photographing-and-filming-police.html#uds-search-results


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Nov 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> This may be of interest to the discussion.
> 
> "There is no law in Canada that prevents a member of the public from taking photographs or video in a public place (other than some limitations related to sensitive defense installations)"
> http://blog.privacylawyer.ca/2012/08/photographing-and-filming-police.html#uds-search-results



Amen to that. 

We need to encourage more picture taking of (and bragging about) our troops by members of the public IMHO. And as soldiers, we need to be aware of what we should, and shouldn't, say to them and how.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Nov 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We need to encourage more picture taking of (and bragging about) our troops by members of the public IMHO. And as soldiers, we need to be aware of what we should, and shouldn't, say to them and how.



Sure, but when those troops are involved in clandestine operations, do you want their faces all over Youtube and Instagram? There's a reason why bravery/valour/meritorious service decorations say "Awarded to a member of CANSOFCOM". Bad people want to do bad things to our soldiers, especially special operators and are just waiting for the opportunity like you suggest.


----------



## X Royal (17 Nov 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sure, but when those troops are involved in clandestine operations, do you want their faces all over Youtube and Instagram? There's a reason why bravery/valour/meritorious service decorations say "Awarded to a member of CANSOFCOM". Bad people want to do bad things to our soldiers, especially special operators and are just waiting for the opportunity like you suggest.


Bottom line is if your operating in view of the public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
OPSEC goes out the door in a public environment.
How many police recently that have stepped over the line wish that being filmed was illegal?
Don't mistake this last statement to think that I'm implying most police officers are bad apples, because my view is completely the opposite.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Cudmore,
> Don't worry about it, keep posting.
> 
> If you could make everyone happy then you'd be boring......
> ...


What he and others have said - it's good to see a working reporter comfortable enough to explain the how's and why's of the craft.


----------



## cudmore (17 Nov 2013)

Hey folks,

Thanks for the renewed welcome.
Here's the thing, I saw Westbrook's Youtube posting, because someone I am Facebook friends with in Ottawa had seen it on one of his friend's pages and that guy was friends with Westbrook's wife's sister, if i have that right.
So, here's the point of saying that: Cameras are ubiqutious, and with the Internet, the pictures they take are everywhere, too.
You pretty much can not do anything anywhere in public and expect that it's safe from exposure.   And if what you have done is questionable, or, you have a hater on your hands, you can expect things to get nasty.
But there's no indication of malice on Westbrook's part than I am aware of.  He tells me he was just garden variety curious, and I believe him.
I think he makes audio recordings of all of his public photgraphy specifcially because sometimes people (and cops) get antsy about having cameras about.
I guess he feels its protection, or evidence, if he should get shoved about by a rookie traffic cop or some such.   
But none of that is relevant to this story, Westbrook says, because no matter what he said, no matter who he was, he believes at law he had a right to be there and to do what he was doing.
He says he got his back up (and got snippy, himself) once the MP started name-dropping the RCMP det commander.
He says he felt he was being threatened with unlawful arrest.
If I could slip off my reporter's hat for one moment, the only thing I would point out is that all it took was one nosy local with a camera to lift the lid on a CANSOFCOM op. And those are just the times we live in.


----------



## garb811 (17 Nov 2013)

cudmore said:
			
		

> If I could slip off my reporter's hat for one moment, the only thing I would point out is that all it took was one nosy local with a camera to lift the lid on a CANSOFCOM op. And those are just the times we live in.


Actually if it wasn't for the ineptness of "Adam", this wouldn't have been a story at all most likely, nosy local or not.  At best it would have been a local interest story at Tim's the next morning when he started talking about the strange goings on at the defunct call center.


----------



## cudmore (17 Nov 2013)

Garb, 
That's a very interesting point.  
J


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Nov 2013)

JayB said:
			
		

> He may have been, but he identified himself in the video as a professional photographer, probably one of the reasons he was dealt with the way he was...



So what exactly constitutes a "professional photographer" these days? If my blog has advertizing and I post my pictures there does that count?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Nov 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So what exactly constitutes a "professional photographer" these days? If my blog has advertizing and I post my pictures there does that count?



It does for this guy, I believe someone here google'd his name and he's got nothing published. Anyone can buy a DSLR camera nowadays and be a professional photographer.


----------



## cupper (18 Nov 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It does for this guy, I believe someone here google'd his name and he's got nothing published. Anyone can buy a DSLR camera nowadays and be a professional photographer.



As long as said anyone reports his / her "professional" income to Revenue Canada (or whatever the heck the call it these days.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Nov 2013)

cudmore said:
			
		

> Hey folks,
> 
> Thanks for the renewed welcome.
> Here's the thing, I saw Westbrook's Youtube posting, because someone I am Facebook friends with in Ottawa had seen it on one of his friend's pages and that guy was friends with Westbrook's wife's sister, if i have that right.
> ...



Hilarious...

Not that I've ever been 'special' (except in that endearing 'short bus' kind of way), but some strategies I and others have employed fairly successfully in similar situations include:

-Tell him the truth: "this is  a military exercise and if you call (have a number handy where civvies can call for more info) you can find out more about what's going on". This obviously needs to be part of a contingency plan in the op order development process.

-Offer to take the guy's picture in front of a piece of  nondescript machinery vs. people's faces. People love to get their photos taken beside army trucks and things like that

-Hand him a cigarette, chocolate bar etc and talk to him and be genuinely interested in what he does. Get his contact information and offer to connect him up with people who can feed him some information later (needs to be followed up of course). I used to keep dog biscuits and boiled sweets in my pocket because the people who usually bounced us accidentally were either walking their dogs or chasing their kids.

-Have a non-descript cover story available e.g., Keep some recruiting business cards in your pockets and hand him one and say you are practising for some kind of upcoming display. This can be risky - especially if it's not the truth.

-Call for backup and keep the guy busy in conversation until relieved by a PAFO or someone else on the op who can talk to the guy while you get on with the business. I've seen people like Padres, RSMs and Paymasters be good at this kind of thing if there are no PAFOs around. Of course this, once again, would require some pre-planning.

- This was always a good one... Civvy asks soldier "Hey, what's going on here?". Soldier says "Well, what do YOU think it looks like?' (with the usual eye roll). Take it from there... usually they say something like 'Oh, looks like a military exercise or something', then you can say, 'Yep, we'll be done here pretty soon.'

And, of course, the most honest response to the question 'What are you doing here' is usually 'Honestly buddy, I have no friggin' idea. I just shut up and do what I'm told'  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (18 Nov 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I used to keep .....boiled sweets in my pocket because ......


Well, because Brits boil _everything_!   :-X


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Hilarious...
> 
> Not that I've ever been 'special' (except in that endearing 'short bus' kind of way), but some strategies I and others have employed fairly successfully in similar situations include:
> 
> ...


Very good ideas (actually aide-memoire-able, if that's a word), but if it's a peacetime training exercise, there's WAY too much that can go wrong if you deliberately lie and are found out - better to say nothing or be correct without going into detail than to be caught lying.  Ask a Senator


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Very good ideas (actually aide-memoire-able, if that's a word), but if it's a peacetime training exercise, there's WAY too much that can go wrong if you deliberately lie and are found out - better to say nothing or be correct without going into detail than to be caught lying.  Ask a Senator



It's OK, this was over 20 years ago, on operations, and way beyond Canada's 200 mile limit ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Nov 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It's OK, this was over 20 years ago, on operations, and way beyond Canada's 200 mile limit ;D


I figured "for real" would be pretty different than peacetime.  Still, a pretty good list - thanks for sharing.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Nov 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Hilarious...
> 
> Not that I've ever been 'special' (except in that endearing 'short bus' kind of way), but some strategies I and others have employed fairly successfully in similar situations include:
> 
> ...



Hit the nail on the head D&B, the problem is a lot of people suffer from a severe lack of "people skills" so instead of just standing there and chatting with the guy for a bit in a friendly tone, these guys made it seem like they were trying to hide something.  I think some friendly conversation with this fellow could have gone a long way to de-escalating this situation.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Nov 2013)

Not if you have been indoctrinated in an atmosphere of hyper-security, which worked against itself in this situation. A couple of statements of the blindingly obvious, such as "we practice moving on short notice to areas we haven't seen before" would have gone a long way towards turning it into the already described local Timmy's sensation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Nov 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Not if you have been indoctrinated in an atmosphere of hyper-security, which worked against itself in this situation ....


Good point - it's all in the balance between "say absolutely nothing to anybody/quiet professionals" and "taxpayers should know _something_ about what their institutions are doing".  Other western democracies are able to share some public info about what their SF troops are up to in battle, even when they get wounded on ops, so it's not as if there are no best practices to be examined/improved on.


----------



## Danjanou (19 Nov 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Hit the nail on the head D&B, the problem is a lot of people suffer from a severe lack of "people skills" so instead of just standing there and chatting with the guy for a bit in a friendly tone, these guys made it seem like they were trying to hide something.  I think some friendly conversation with this fellow could have gone a long way to de-escalating this situation.



In general yes, with OS' very important caveat taken into account. However having listened to the video several times now, I feel it would not have made too much of a difference in this case. Mr Westbrook comes across as someone wrapped up in his own self importance and self righteous behaviour and who is looking for a windmill to tilt at and finally was granted one.


----------



## Lightguns (19 Nov 2013)

One has to wonder about a person who feels the need to record his conversations with strangers in public.   He probably looking for the truth behind 9/11. Treat him civilly, ask for his media credentials, when he shows none, remain him to stay on public property, bid him good day and carry on with your tasks.


----------



## myheadhurts (21 Nov 2013)

This incident does not surprise me. If they are going to hold an exercise they should have cordon off the area, have public relations and civi police available to answer questions. They should also have a cover story. A few years back I was on a military flight into Afghanistan and there was a handful of these guys on the flight. A civilian, PSP staff started asking questions why they were dressed and kitted different. The guys couldn't give a good answer which made the civi ask more and more.  

As an avid photographer and someone who lived in a small town I would have loved to snap some shots of mysterious government agency that stopped in by to play close to home.


----------

