# Petitioning Minister of National Defence to fix the injustice induced by the CF.



## George Wallace (29 Mar 2015)

This is a very serious matter and has just arisen on this site.  The posts have been removed due to their nature.  This reply should be kept in mind by all members of this site:



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Uneke125-
> 
> I will draw your attention to QR&O 19.10. No member of the CF may combine with other members of the CF to sign petitions on any matter concerning the CF.
> 
> What you are asking serving members to do is against the law.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2015)

What about those members of this forum who are civilians ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Mar 2015)

It is, obviously, not against the law for civilians to sign a petition. If you read QR&19.10, the implication is that serving members can sign petitions. Just not those involving the CF. FJAG can probably do better than me.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is, obviously, not against the law for civilians to sign a petition. If you read QR&19.10, the implication is that serving members can sign petitions. Just not those involving the CF. FJAG can probably do better than me.



I am no debating what you have stated.  Simply asking why it was removed ?  This forum is not in anyway an official CAF forum or any other such media outlet governed by the QR&Os, DAODs, CFAOs ect.  So why was it removed ?  CAF members should know their arcs.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Mar 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ......  CAF members should know their arcs.



Yes, they should.  Often there are a few who forget those arcs.  

Civilians can sign all the petitions they want; but is it proper to post such a request on a CAF oriented site?


----------



## Occam (29 Mar 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, they should.  Often there are a few who forget those arcs.
> 
> Civilians can sign all the petitions they want; but is it proper to post such a request on a CAF oriented site?



Let the CAF worry about those who forget their arcs.  There are a significant number of retired military here; is it proper to censor information that might be pertinent to them because someone who is still serving _might_ not be aware of QR&O 19.10?  You know what they say...ignorance of the law is no excuse.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, they should.  Often there are a few who forget those arcs.
> 
> Civilians can sign all the petitions they want; but is it proper to post such a request on a CAF oriented site?



A CAF oriented site with a CAF oriented topic.  I don't see the issue.  If a member doesn't know their orders on this matter, and breaks them, then they pay the consequences.  That doesn't mean we should "censor" topics, does it ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Mar 2015)

It is also a privately owned site. Ultimately, the owner is responsible for the posted content. The topics are at his discretion.


----------



## uneke125 (29 Mar 2015)

I posted it and I am a civilian. Therefore, I am not breaking any laws.  I am trying to fight for our soldiers. The government needs to treat every member of the Canadian Forces (Class A,B or C.) The CF reservists make up for 60% of the military and are the backbone.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2015)

uneke125 said:
			
		

> I posted it and I am a civilian. Therefore, I am not breaking any laws.  I am trying to fight for our soldiers. The government needs to treat every member of the Canadian Forces (Class A,B or C.) The CF reservists make up for 60% of the military and are the backbone.



You should probably have remained quiet.  Your last stated "fact" is about to get flamed.


----------



## Occam (29 Mar 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is also a privately owned site. Ultimately, the owner is responsible for the posted content. The topics are at his discretion.



Agreed, but there's no inherent harm or risk to the site owner by allowing a link to a petition.  The onus is on the CAF member to know what they can and cannot do in accordance with CAF regulations.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is also a privately owned site. Ultimately, the owner is responsible for the posted content. The topics are at his discretion.



Well there goes any honest and open discussion.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Agreed, but there's no inherent harm or risk to the site owner by allowing a link to a petition.  The onus is on the CAF member to know what they can and cannot do in accordance with CAF regulations.



+1  Milpoints inbound!


----------



## MARS (29 Mar 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ...If a member doesn't know their orders on this matter, and breaks them, then they pay the consequences.  That doesn't mean we should "censor" topics, does it ?



You would hope, but in the past the owner has been the subject of legal action because of posts made by the membership, who did not know their arcs, and broke them, but did not have to pay the consequences (time, angst and money) - the owner did.

I can't really fault him, or the mods who support him, for wanting to avoid that.  Once bitten, twice shy and all that.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Mar 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well there goes any honest and open discussion.



Actually: NO

I removed the original two topics posted by uneke125 (Yes; there were more than One (1) topic linking the petition posted by uneke125.) for further discussion amongst the Mods.  As this is not RABBLE.CA, we do have mods who attempt to keep the site out of any forms of improprieties leading to legal action.  I felt that those posts may have been inappropriate for this site, and moved them to a location where the mods are discussing the matter.  If there is a consensus, then the appropriate topic will be returned and this once can be deleted.  Far from total censorship as some are alluding to.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Mar 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Far from total censorship as some are alluding to.



When I want to be totally censored I hang around the CBC website and let their mods muzzle me.  Here, it's not so bad...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Mar 2015)

Lets be clear, the original post was not asking for a discussion.  It was, in fact, a soliciation.

If the OP wanted to have a discussion, they would have asked whether we thought it was right/wrong.  They did not do that, they posted a statement, without any source backing it up and then asked us to sign a petition.  Doesn't seem like they really wanted to have a discussion if you ask me  :dunno:

George is well within his arcs to have deleted this post IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Mar 2015)

uneke125 said:
			
		

> I posted it and I am a civilian. Therefore, I am not breaking any laws.  I am trying to fight for our soldiers. The government needs to treat every member of the Canadian Forces (Class A,B or C.) The CF reservists make up for 60% of the military and are the backbone.



Because you are a civilian you are not aware of our regs, orders and policies we are bound to follow or face administrative and/or disciplinary actions.  Most CAF members need to invest significant amounts of time to understand them and SME advice on their meaning and application.  

We have the NDA, QR & Os, CFAOs, DAODs, Command/Base/Wing/unit level orders...to name some of them.


We also have various informal and formal processes for members to seek resolution for issues covering a broad spectrum of topics.  There are also policies in place for how a mbr must use those processes, else they face admin and/or disciplinary actions.  One example is the link below to DAOD 5047-1.  Please note the "Application", "Failure to Comply" as well as "Existing Mechanisms" sections.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5047-1.page

As for your last sentence,  I think anyone who takes issue with it need only read your first sentence to understand where you are coming from.  

 :2c:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Mar 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well there goes any honest and open discussion.



...and yet, somehow, your post is still there.


----------



## FJAG (29 Mar 2015)

Okay I'll take a stab at this.

As most of you know I'm a retired lawyer and retired reserve legal officer. During my time with JAG I never dealt with this issue so I give the following caveat; what I say below is neither a JAG position, nor a legal opinion but simply my own personal take on the matter.

Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association."

QR&O 19.10 provides: 

"19.10 - COMBINATIONS FORBIDDEN
No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:

combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces."

DAOD 5407-1 provides in part that:

"Right to Complain

12. Any of the following persons may bring a complaint to the Ombudsman, directly and free of charge, where the matter complained about relates directly to DND or the CF

(a) a member or former member;

(b) a member or former member of the Cadets;

(c) an employee or former employee;

(d) an employee or former employee of the Staff of Non-Public Funds, CF;

(e) a person who applies to become a member;

(f) a member of the immediate family of a person referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e); or

(g) a person who, pursuant to law or pursuant to an agreement between Canada and the state in whose armed forces the person is serving, attached or seconded as an officer or non-commissioned member to the CF."

In addition under s 29(1) of the NDA and s 7 of the QR&Os a member has the right to submit a Redress where the member has been aggrieved.

Fundamentally a member's right to bring forward an injustice is through an individual complaint to the ombudsman or by way of a grievance.

QR&O 19.10 does not restrict the right to complain other than in doing so together in a joint process with other serving members. It's a kinder and gentler brother to s 80 of the NDA, Mutiny without Violence.

Mutiny is defined in s 2 of the NDA as "“mutiny” means collective insubordination or a combination of two or more persons in the resistance of lawful authority in any of Her Majesty’s Forces or in any forces cooperating therewith"

The key characteristic of mutiny and QR&O 19.10 is prohibiting actions by two or more members acting together in an unauthorized way or for an unauthorized purpose.

On its surface, QR&O 19.10 violates the provisions of ss 2(b) and (d) of the Charter and in my humble civilian opinion a strong arguable case can be made for the fact that it does and that therefore it should be of no force and effect.

That said, do I think individual, serving members should sign petitions etc advocating change within the CF? -- HELL NO!! -- QR&O 19.10 is a valid, lawful order until a court says otherwise.

I've long been a believer that unless you specifically want to test the system and are prepared to go through a long and arduous process that may cost you money or your career and that you may lose in the end, you should not challenge existing regulations and orders. That may sound like a coward's way out but in my mind when there are options which you can use which do not put you at risk then you should use those. 

Nothing prevents each and every serving member to individually file a complaint with the Ombudsman. Here for example you could make two complaints - one against QR&O 19.10 and its prohibition on petitions and one on the actual issue that the petition was in favour of. I'm quite sure that if several serving members filed individual complaints then they would be administratively aggregated into one investigation within the Ombudsman's office in any event.

If the administrators of this site are serving members then I think they need to be cautious about how they manage things so that it cannot be said that they did not "obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces". Whether you wish to instil a blanket policy against facilitating links to petitions or simply issuing warnings to members about the provisions of QR&O 19.10 is up to you. In the end it's a question of how much risk you wish to assume.

Once again. This is not a legal opinion but merely my own humble non-legal opinion. 

 :cheers:


----------



## ballz (29 Mar 2015)

"Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Marginal note:Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it _subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified_ in a free and democratic society."



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> On its surface, QR&O 19.10 violates the provisions of ss 2(b) and (d) of the Charter and in my humble civilian opinion a strong arguable case can be made for the fact that it does and that therefore it should be of no force and effect.



I was surprised at your humble civilian opinion on this one. As a professional military, we are bound by law to execute orders impartially. Without QR&O 19.10 we would be opening up a crazy can of worms by allowing military members to effectively band together and try to influence policy. Can you imagine if the MND ordered us to deploy and soldiers started petitioning against the MND's orders? It could literally affect the political stability of the country. I would call QR&O 19.10 a "reasonable limit" given our profession.


----------



## Occam (29 Mar 2015)

I didn't see the original post.  With that said, from what I've seen, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of QR&O 19.10.  What is being questioned is whether it's proper or not to advertise a link here to an online petition.  For serving members, following the link and completing the petition clearly contravenes QR&O 19.10 if it deals with any military matter.  However, there are lots of topics that would be of interest to retired military that I don't foresee causing wrath to fall upon the site owner, and would be completely okay for retired members to sign if they were petitions.

I was among the members named in the last legal kerfluffle the site went through because the subject of the comments made irked the individual being discussed.  That's pretty clear cut in how the site owner could be held responsible for hosting a venue for defamatory comments.  However, I'm not sure how the site owner could be held responsible for Pte Bloggins seeing a link here to a petition hosted elsewhere, and going off and signing it in contravention of QR&O 19.10.  The link to the petition (or the petition itself) isn't illegal in any way, shape or form - but it's entirely Bloggins' responsibility to know whether he's allowed to sign it or not.


----------



## X Royal (29 Mar 2015)

Here's my question as a former member of the Forces.
Would a serving member be in violation of 19.10 if they signed a petition as an individual about "_about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces_"?

19.10 seems to state 
"_No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:

*combine with other members* for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces._"

Would it be considered combining if none of those had any other knowledge of the others actions?


----------



## TCM621 (29 Mar 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> "Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
> 
> Marginal note:Rights and freedoms in Canada
> 
> ...


I don't think allowing members of the military the right to have a say in the running of said CAF , in the form of petitions is really going to ruin the military.  There is a difference between having a voice and interfering with lawful commands. 

I think this is where FJAG was going. If one felt the need to challenge the prohibition on the signing of petitions on charter grounds, they would have a strong argument.  In the end, I think there are better routes for CF members to pursue then petitions.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Mar 2015)

X Royal said:
			
		

> Would it be considered combining if none of those had any other knowledge of the others actions?



I think it might. There's no stipulation that members of the combination (conspiracy) know of each others' actions. I think there may also be case law to that effect. FJAG???


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Mar 2015)

Having not seen the original post that kicked off this discussion, I was left wondering what was this great "injustice induced by the CF" that needed fixing.  I will suggest that a petition be introduced to judge the original poster an idiot, and not just a plain garden variety found in any village, but a cowardly idiot.  I will accept that he (or she) is probably accustomed to the standard practice of internet anonymity and a usual demonstration of poor judgement, however that doesn't excuse registering here for the sole purpose of soliciting signatures on a petition.  My grievance is exacerbated because the nondescript username he chose (as well as no profile details) provided no clue as to his agenda.  A quick google of his username yielded only a couple of hits on other forum sites that suggest he was trolling them to do there what he tried to accomplish here.  I would visit one of those petition starting sites to start an idiot petition and post a link, but I'm too lazy.

But I was still left wondering "what injustice" or was the idiot's post as poorly worded as its title and would it have confused me just as much as its deletion.  By using some googling, I think I found the situation that raised the fervour of uneke125 to skip about the internet this weekend trying to get additional signatures on this petition.  The circumstances (if I have correctly found the right one) are mildly troubling and would probably raise some discussion (both pro and con) on these means - there has already been a similar thread as well some initial reporting of the original events.  While I won't provide a link to the story or the petition, I will say that it is not that new - the petition was started 4+ months ago and has gathered only 1315 signatures to the time of this post.  While my sympathy is with those affected, I would not sign the petition because I disagree with the premise (as well as the poor wording of the missive).  Being no longer a serving member, I have the option.


----------



## cupper (29 Mar 2015)

Ok, we need to stop pussyfooting around what the original subject of the petition was and post it to allow a discussion to ensue (perhaps a dangerous move as some past discussions have devolved) or lock the thread, as this appears to be going nowhere. :2c:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Mar 2015)

The OP solicited the readership to sign a petition to the MND to provide compensation to a Naval Reservist who was allegedly (I only say that, because am not party to any of the facts. It is no judgement on the situation) misdiagnosed over a brain tumour while on Class  C and permanently disabled as a result.

I could care less about the petition- I pointed out QR&O 19.10 to everyone still serving and reported it to moderator, so the site owner would be aware.

Now, aside from that, why this would be a MND issue (other than maybe asking Surg General if a misdiagnosis did occur and if so, what is being done to prevent future misdiagnosis) vice a clear cut VAC issue is beyond me...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Mar 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The OP solicited the readership to sign a petition to the MND to provide compensation to a Naval Reservist who was allegedly (I only say that, because am not party to any of the facts. It is no judgement on the situation) misdiagnosed over a brain tumour while on Class  C and permanently disabled as a result.



Oh, guess I found the wrong a different petition.  Still, no change in my opinion.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Mar 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The key characteristic of mutiny and QR&O 19.10 is prohibiting actions by two or more members acting together in an unauthorized way or for an unauthorized purpose.
> 
> On its surface, QR&O 19.10 violates the provisions of ss 2(b) and (d) of the Charter and in my humble civilian opinion a strong arguable case can be made for the fact that it does and that therefore it should be of no force and effect.
> 
> That said, do I think individual, serving members should sign petitions etc advocating change within the CF? -- HELL NO!! -- QR&O 19.10 is a valid, lawful order until a court says otherwise.



I suspect that a court might uphold 19.10, or direct minor changes, as it could be argued that it can be categorized as a reasonable limit within a free and democratic society.  The unique nature of military service has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as Genereux; it's not a carte blanche, but it is clear that there remains a significant level of deference to the military within the courts.


----------



## FJAG (29 Mar 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I suspect that a court might uphold 19.10, or direct minor changes, as it could be argued that it can be categorized as a reasonable limit within a free and democratic society.  The unique nature of military service has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as Genereux; it's not a carte blanche, but it is clear that there remains a significant level of deference to the military within the courts.



Going just a bit  ff topic: here but I don't think that the SCC would go far in protecting the "unique nature of military service" on this issue. Remember that much of the case law which protects the military justice system comes about from the fact that the Constitution itself makes provisions for a distinct military justice system. 

There are legal principles called "overbreadth" and "vagueness" which attack laws that are too broadly stated or too vaguely worded and thereby limit constitutionally protected activities. 

I fully agree that the military requires a justice system that mandates that orders are obeyed even though they may lead to serious injury or death; that's what we're all about at the end of the day. 

That said, when we deal with administrative matters, and even matters of policy, the rules could easily be much looser. It is very hard to present a cogent argue that if one soldier has the right to seek a redress of a grievance, or apply to the ombudsman then if two or more, who are equally effected or interested in the outcome, state their complaint together then the fabric of the entire military structure will come apart. Hopefully we're not that fragile.

eace:

 :cheers:


----------



## McG (30 Mar 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Hopefully we're not that fragile.


Emotionally, some organizations and individuals amongst us are.


----------

