# Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF



## bossi

I saw a tiny bit of the Ombudsman's report on live TV today - not enough to be able to comment intelligently.
However, if this Toronto Star article is correct, then it is unfortunate that whomever destroyed the original letter will not be brought to justice (i.e. not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done).

Aug. 13, 02:00 EDT   
Report could tarnish military 
Allan Thompson
OTTAWA BUREAU 
OTTAWA - Canada's armed forces will likely get another black eye with today's release of a report by military Ombudsman AndréÂ ?arin.

In 300 pages, the ombudsman reviews complaints by a communications officer who alleged he became subject to reprisal after accusing a senior officer of acting improperly.

Capt. Bruce Poulin was a speechwriter at army headquarters in 1996 when he wrote a memo to then deputy army commander, Maj.-Gen. Bill Leach, saying he saw another officer harass a female officer.

The officer Poulin accused of wrongdoing was Col. Serge LabbéÂ¬Â who led the ill-fated 1993 Canadian Airborne Regiment mission to Somalia. On that mission, one Somali was mysteriously shot dead, another was tortured and killed and a coverup alleged. An investigation took place and the regiment was disbanded.

Poulin alleged LabbéÂ Â¨ad sexually harassed a waitress at a mess in the military college LabbéÂ Â£ommanded that Poulin attended.

Eventually, military police cleared LabbéÂ Â¯f the allegations and dismissed the claim Leach had failed to properly investigate the charges initially.

Leach has since retired from the forces. LabbéÂ Â£ontinues to serve.

In a July, 1996, memo - which Leach later said he never saw - Poulin said he saw LabbéÂ Â­aking unwanted sexual advances toward the young woman in the college mess.

Poulin says he hand-delivered his 1996 memo to Leach. Excerpts from Poulin's diary, later given to military police, suggest he also told then chief of defence Maurice Baril.

No probe was launched until Poulin's memo was leaked to the media in 1998. By then, Leach was a lieutenant-general and the army commander.

Military police then probed the allegations against Labbé®Â They separately investigated whether Leach mishandled the investigation but apparently waited several months before seeking a copy of Poulin's memo, which mysteriously disappeared.

Poulin was accused of leaking information to the media. In a news release, he said he found himself ``alone and isolated'' after his allegations became public. ``I had dared to question the behaviour of the `best colonel in the army' . . .'' he said.

Military documents already made public revealed several people recalled talking to Leach about Poulin's memo or remembered seeing the document in his office - though Leach said he had not read it.


----------



## RCA

and the beat goes on

ethics my *** 

Master Blaster, you called it.


----------



## the patriot

Um, one count of Conduct Unbecoming of a Canadian Forces Member. Anyone, anyone?! I second, and third that motion (this isn‘t being given Royal Assent is it?!).  

-the patriot-


----------



## rcrman

I smell B***S***! Something stinks and I am glad that the Ombudsman is now finding that out. Get the Frebreze going in the halls of NDHQ, crack some windows open...get that smell out of there for once and for all!!! Man yet again...coverups and "sweeping under of rugs". Hasn‘t the public heard enough of this crap? And we wonder why their isn‘t proper funding or public interest in the military these days. "Yes please, I‘ll take two black eyes once again...just like 1994/95 era"
I say air out these problems...and charge these top brass d***s who do absolutely nothing except advance their careers! Maybe some of these Generals who seem to have "horse-blinders" on while in key positions, while dealing with problems should look at their "Principles of Leadership" Cards and their Commission Officer Scrolls now and then!! Man that pisses me off! And hell yes everyone who signs the dotted line should/is accountable under QR&O and NDA, Code of Service Discipline, etc...Does Leach, like others have SELECTIVE AMNESIA???????? Does anyone know? Maybe it‘s just me?
 :skull: skull: :skull: skull: :fifty: 

[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: Grubby ]


----------



## Jarnhamar

Does anyone agree with me in that a soldier who falsely accuses another soldier of sexual harassment (and if obviously caught) should they themselves be charged and dishonourably discharged from the military?


----------



## humint

Well, I agree that something should be done. May be not discharged, but severely reprimanded.


----------



## Zoomie

In fact, under the whole SHARP (or whatever they call it this week) policy, there is a clause for malicious/false claims.  If a claimant falsely accuses another of harassment, he/she can be charged. If it was simply a case of misunderstanding, then there are no problems.


----------



## PMedMoe

An Edmonton reserve unit soldier convicted of raping a female recruit at a party following a basic training course was sentenced to three years in prison yesterday. 

After Master Cpl. Orman Boyd Savage, 38, was handcuffed in court and led away by sheriffs, the victim of the 2004 assault said she can now finally get on with her life. 

Article Link


----------



## geo

Well, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers...
Three years in the can
Good riddance to bad rubbish!  We don't need people who can't keep their dick under control


----------



## GUNS

Geo,
1+ to your comment. 

What I don't understand is that DND failed to respond to the lady's statement that, this is a on going problem within the CF and its "hushed up".


----------



## c_canuk

maybe they did, but the media decided not to publish it...

as someone who has instructed on BMQ/SQ in the past the idea that an instructor could take advantage of their power over the students like this sickens me.

If he did it, he should have gotten a lot more than 3 years.

I do wonder why it took over 3 years for this to be concluded. That seems like a long time to me.


----------



## geo

WRT ongoing problem & hushed-up allegations...

Am certain that this lady felt that she couldn't be the only one to have ever been assaulted in same said manner.... you mix young men with young women, throw in some booze & let the hormones take over... put it on auto-pilot and VOILA!

Does consentual sex happen within the military... you betcha...
However, once a relationship turns sour, does the consentual sex remain consentual?

WRT the "hushed up"... it is common practice to advise complainant AND accused not to talk (gossip) to anyone about the incident - in order to make the investigator's work easier.  Allowing him the chance to find untainted witnesses.  If no one other than the investigator is talking about it - is it being hushed up?.... NO!


----------



## PMedMoe

c_canuk said:
			
		

> as someone who has instructed on BMQ/SQ in the past the idea that an instructor could take advantage of their power over the students like this sickens me.



As you see on the Military Court Martial website, people are often charged with "S. 95 NDA, ill-treated a person who by reason of rank was subordinate to him." which, I believe, includes sexual assault.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> I do wonder why it took over 3 years for this to be concluded. That seems like a long time to me.



Probably took that long for the investigation.


----------



## PMedMoe

geo said:
			
		

> However, once a relationship turns sour, does the consentual sex remain consentual?



I think it may be unfair to the victim to *assume* this was a relationship that had gone sour.  This guy was married. (Yes, I know, it happens) Good thing it's not the U.S. Military as they can be charged for adultery.


----------



## geo

Don't get me wrong... am not saying or insinuating that, in this case, this MCpl was fraternising to the point of having developed a relationship - but I have seen a couple of incidents in this area (LFQA) where it has happened.


----------



## Pencil Tech

Wow, I had that guy as an instructor on a Dvr Whl course a few years ago.


----------



## medaid

Good riddance...


----------



## scoutfinch

geo said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong... am not saying or insinuating that, in this case, this MCpl was fraternising to the point of having developed a relationship - but I have seen a couple of incidents in this area (LFQA) where it has happened.



Funny... Similar incidents have occurred in the past and sometimes the women have chosen not to complain to police. Does that have any impact on _this_ particular case?  I don't think so.  Nor does your point.


----------



## armyvern

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> As you see on the Military Court Martial website, people are often charged with "S. 95 NDA, ill-treated a person who by reason of rank was subordinate to him." which, I believe, includes sexual assault.
> 
> Probably took that long for the investigation.



No it's not inclusive of the charge ... witness this link:

McDougall 27 Nov 2007

Click on the hyperlink to the charge sheet et voila:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/chargesheets/mcdougall.pdf

What irks me is the MSM and people once again saying shit like this is covered up, yet here we are posting links to publicly available information. This is really starting to piss me off.


----------



## PMedMoe

I should have said the other charge (often) accompanies sexual assault when it's done by a person of higher rank to a person of lower rank.


----------



## armyvern

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I should have said the other charge (often) accompanies sexual assault when it's done by a person of higher rank to a person of lower rank.



Seen.


----------



## eaduff

Oddly enough this has been happening for a long time and its not just military specific.  It's not necessarily covered up but some times the accused manages to use their rank and position and knowledge of the system to escape the charge. Just doesn't seem fair.  For people in positions of authority to use that authority in order to get sex or anything else illegal or immoral is just.......  well its just f#$$^% sick.  Some people mistake a friendly outgoing attitude as some how sexual and seek to take advantage of it.  Nothing that a well placed knee or a good solid rear naked choke wouldn't solve.

No means No and that isn't just for male on female, because even though it is mainly male on female, there is also female on male, female on female and male on male.  Chances are you won't hear about those though.


----------



## geo

eaduff...

As I stated earlier, the CF has a "zero tolerance" policy and the moment superiors find out about it, the juggernaut starts moving: slow & deliberate.  

This requires that the victim comes out and speaks out - either on his/her own or with the help of a friend/comrade.  If a situation persiste, because the victim is intimidated or in spite of being known by the the comrades, then the comrade is contributing to the victimization of the victim AND the comrade is no better than the driver who carries on past the scene of an accident where help MUST be tendered.


----------



## Soldiergirl

I've got to say that I find this kinda disturbing. As someone that is in the process of joining the CF. I've heard many stories of this happening. How are you to make sure you're safe in situations like these???


----------



## geo

soldiergirl...
The CF is no more dangerous than things are on cviy street.

1.  Instructors and Leaders have received very specific directives on NOT fraternizing with their subordinates.  It should not happen.
2.  Zero tolerance - they do something, they will be reported, they will be dealt with - with all the powers the law can throw at them.
3.  Just say NO!  If you are in a situation where you feel uncomfortable - just say so!
4.  If something is done & you witness it.... report it!

Members of the CF are not animals....  the CF IS safe!

If you suddenly believe / are convinced that you are at risk.... then possibly - the CF isn't the place for you to be.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Soldiergirl said:
			
		

> I've got to say that I find this kinda disturbing. As someone that is in the process of joining the CF. I've heard many stories of this happening. How are you to make sure you're safe in situations like these???



You heard wrong........................you want disturbing, come see the dirtbags in the revolving civilian justice system.

Compared to what most get, this moron got the book thrown at him......


..and lastly, if your life is still being driven by "hearing many stories" than you probably should try and grow up before you tackle a big-persons job.


----------



## Soldiergirl

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and lastly, if your life is still being driven by "hearing many stories" than you probably should try and grow up before you tackle a big-persons job.



I was just stating my opinion and saying that I'd heard of this happening more then once. Not once did I state that I'd feel unsafe. I'd like to see the idiot that would try anything like this on me!! As for growing up...well I have been for quite some time now. 

Look I was just asking for advice. I take offense to a statement like this. I, and many come on this site to find and learn from those that have the experience. Not to be insulted and talked down to. Thanks


----------



## the 48th regulator

Soldiergirl said:
			
		

> I was just stating my opinion and saying that I'd heard of this happening more then once. Not once did I state that I'd feel unsafe. I'd like to see the idiot that would try anything like this on me!! As for growing up...well I have been for quite some time now.
> 
> Look I was just asking for advice. I take offense to a statement like this. I, and many come on this site to find and learn from those that have the experience. Not to be insulted and talked down to. Thanks



Did it ever occur to you that the words you "Heard many stories of this happening" may offend those of us that serve, or have served being tainted by such a statement.

Maybe Bruce's opinion is just as valid as you caustic question.

In fact, can you provide valid sources that back your statement?

dileas

tess


----------



## Pikache

Soldiergirl said:
			
		

> I was just stating my opinion and saying that I'd heard of this happening more then once. Not once did I state that I'd feel unsafe. I'd like to see the idiot that would try anything like this on me!! As for growing up...well I have been for quite some time now.
> 
> Look I was just asking for advice. I take offense to a statement like this. I, and many come on this site to find and learn from those that have the experience. Not to be insulted and talked down to. Thanks


I know you don't mean to tar all the men in CF with same brush, but a lot of soldiers get mildly annoyed when even implied with doing something that is totally unprofessional. And I know this is not what you mean.

It's a touchy subject for a lot of people, so everyone just take it easy

edit: If you're a girl and you're on a course, most likely you will get hit on. You're a girl, and most of the course is full of guys, esp. after couple of weeks of being CB'd and hormones being hormones. There's always few that can't handle their hormones and just lack discipline

Just don't flirt, and give the boys any ideas and if they don't respect your boundaries, tell them no. If it becomes unacceptable for you, talk to staff.


----------



## Soldiergirl

It was never my intention to insult or offended anyone in the CF, for that I apologise. I'm married to a CF member. So believe me I'm sorry if anyone took what I said in the wrong context.

For many years I've wanted to be in the CF. But life has it's own way sometimes. Many people have tried to change my mind. It hasn't worked so far. So a few harsh words won't do it either. God you should hear the crap that will pop out of my husbands mouth. LOL

Anyway I'm sorry some were offended.


----------



## muskrat89

Let's get this back on track or it will be locked.

Pencil Tech - if you have a problem with moderation, use the "Report" function, or send Mike Bobbitt a PM. Period.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## Scott

I'm still a bit young but in my years I have: served in the Military, attended a post secondary institution and worked in remote areas, including offshore, for oil and gas...

And in all places I found the behaviour the same. Put boys and girls together in a living and working/learning environment and one or both sexes will make an attempt at nookie (eventually). And in my experience with all of these things it has always taken a simple "no" to deter someone from getting fresh any further. Throw booze into the mix and it escalates.

Point is - it happens everywhere and you are no more prone to getting hit on in the CF or in a remote drilling camp or a university dorm. As well, I believe that reports of sexual abuse and abuse in general are the exception rather than the rule, at least they have been in my experience.


----------



## Korus

Wow, I had this guy on the same Driver Wheeled course as Pencil Tech..

Crazy.


----------



## Scott

geo,

I was trying to take your comments further with my own experiences, not muddle yours.


Soldiergirl, a question for you:

You're married to a CF member, right? Why come here and ask the question when you have someone fully qualified to answer sharing a roof with you? I'm just curious as it seems rather odd that your husband wouldn't set your mind at ease about this one.


----------



## Soldiergirl

Scott said:
			
		

> Soldiergirl, a question for you:
> 
> You're married to a CF member, right? Why come here and ask the question when you have someone fully qualified to answer sharing a roof with you? I'm just curious as it seems rather odd that your husband wouldn't set your mind at ease about this one.



The reason I join on here was mainly to meet and get to know other people just starting out. My husband answers my questions the best he can. But he can't answer them all.


----------



## eaduff

I think if you look at the stats for "uninvited sex" on college/university campuses, the numbers would probably scare you.  As for the Military, we are hard core and disciplined but we are still from a rather varied cross section of society, so you will find those people who don't know that NO means NO.  It can happen at all rank levels to all rank levels and can be male on female, female on male, female on female or male on male .  The thing that must be done is to report it so we all can soldier on without fear.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/04/10/9075151-sun.html
Soldier wins second trial in sex case
By TONY BLAIS
The Edmonton Sun

Alberta's highest court has ordered a new trial for an Edmonton reserve unit soldier convicted of raping a female recruit at a party after a basic training course.

In a decision released yesterday, the Court of Appeal of Alberta quashed the Aug. 16, 2007, provincial court conviction of Orman Boyd Savage, 39, and directed him to appear in court on May 4 to set a trial date.
"There must be a new trial," said Justice Ron Berger. "We allow the appeal, vacate the conviction and so order."

The three-judge appeal panel ruled the trial judge erred by failing to properly use the Supreme Court legal test used in cases where both the alleged victim and the accused give opposing versions in their testimony.
Savage, a reserve master corporal, was sentenced to three years in prison on the conviction last January.

Judge Albert Chrumka called it a serious sexual assault that was aggravated by Savage taking advantage of a person who was inebriated and seeking assistance from him.
The 24-year-old victim testified at trial that she had passed out in a bathroom stall after a July 30, 2004, party at the Debney Armoury on Roper Road and when she awoke, she found Savage having sex with her.

Savage, testifying in his own defence, claimed the woman had tried to have sex with him when he was dazed after banging his head on the wall while helping her vomit.
The full-time electrician and part-time reservist, who is married with two sons, was charged after an interview by the Canadian Forces national investigation service.

Just before being led away in handcuffs, Savage was allowed to say goodbye to his wife and he reiterated that he was not guilty and told her he loved her.
In a victim impact statement, the woman tearfully spoke of losing her army career and hope of becoming a doctor.
"My life has been damaged irreversibly," she said at the time, telling court she suffers from depression and is being treated for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

She added the lengthy court proceeding was "something that had to be done" because she believes this type of conduct happens often in the military and is "hushed up."


----------



## Long in the tooth

In all my decades instructing both RegF and Res I kept one simple rule - look but don't ever touch because nothing good can ever come of it.  And I have seen some strange sht.


----------



## mariomike

Scott said:
			
		

> Put boys and girls together in a living and working/learning environment and one or both sexes will make an attempt at nookie (eventually).



How is this for an cozy environment? You work 16 hour night shifts. Later reduced to 12. 1900-0700. Just the two of you cooped up all alone in a _tiny_ ambulance crew room in in the middle of suburban nowhere, or perhaps dowtown or in between. 40 ambulance stations scatterred across a city. I'm talking crew rooms not much bigger than a cubicle in size. No Captain or other crewmates to play chaperone. No nosey neighbours.  Just the 2 of you until your relief comes in at 0700. Just one unisex washroom. No kitchen/dormitory etc. Just a tiny - I mean CRAMPED - little room with one, perhaps two, couches jammed side by side. These 40 or so places ( everyone completely different than the other, private homes, funeral homes, abondoned garages, industrial plazas, water treatment plants, the old morgue, I could go on and on about the stations and their transient locations! They were - supposedly - temporary.  All were isolated. )  had been acquired  - never built - as ambulance stations long before there were any females on the job,  no one had given the above  any thought.
Nothing at all to do, except wait for the next call. Might not even be a TV set or telephone. No cellphones until recent years. Wasn't even night time TV, way back when. 
Of course, being professionals, nothing untoward ever happened between partners, that I am aware of. But, try convincing the wives at home otherwise!
I hope this is sort of on topic?


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Savage, testifying in his own defence, claimed the woman had tried to have sex with him when he was dazed after banging his head on the wall while helping her vomit.


 :


----------



## Greymatters

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> :



Im sure many of us can pick holes in both side's stories but since we arent privy to all the information its not a productive exercise - its enough to say that since he got a re-trial there must have been enough doubt to substantiate it...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Im sure many of us can pick holes in both side's stories but since we arent privy to all the information its not a productive exercise - its enough to say that since he got a re-trial there must have been enough doubt to substantiate it...



For sure.
You've been in a while. I'm sure you like many of us have seen lots of crazy stuff.
NCOs being inappropriate with recruits.
Recruits getting off on NCO attention then getting scared and crying rape.
Both NCO and recruit entering into a dumb situation both being at fault.

I'm just laughing at his line of defence
"tried to have sex with him when he was dazed after banging his head on the wall while helping her vomit." 
Sounds pretty hokey.


----------



## Greymatters

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> For sure.
> You've been in a while. I'm sure you like many of us have seen lots of crazy stuff.
> NCOs being inappropriate with recruits.
> Recruits getting off on NCO attention then getting scared and crying rape.
> Both NCO and recruit entering into a dumb situation both being at fault.
> 
> I'm just laughing at his line of defence
> "tried to have sex with him when he was dazed after banging his head on the wall while helping her vomit."
> Sounds pretty hokey.



Cant argue with any of those points...


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> In all my decades instructing both RegF and Res I kept one simple rule - look but don't ever touch because nothing good can ever come of it.  And I have seen some strange sht.



I wouldn't be to sure about that "just look" policy.  ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Im sure many of us can pick holes in both side's stories but since we arent privy to all the information its not a productive exercise - its enough to say that *since he got a re-trial there must have been enough doubt to substantiate it*...



In most cases an appeal does not deal with the "facts" of the original conviction but rather the application of the law or the process of the original trial.  While there could have been some error in the conclusions reached by the trial judge (but without having access to all the evidence presented, we would just be making uninformed guesses) the issue that resulted in a new trial is well noted in the decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2009/2009abca139/2009abca139.html


> [1]       *The central legal issue in this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in law by defining the “main issue” at trial in the following terms:
> 
> “I think that the main issue is whether or not I accept your testimony as to what actually took place or whether I accept the complainant’s testimony, and as I have already indicated, I do choose to accept the testimony of the complainant. Hers is more rational. It is more reasonable to the point.”     (A.B. Digest, F2/43-47)*
> 
> [2]       At A.B. Digest F3/14, the trial judge subsequently sets out the three pronged formulation in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (S.C.C.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. Is that sufficient to cure the impugned approach? We think not. The model instructions set out in W.(D.) do not require a formalistic incantation. They are intended, however, to ensure that the trier of fact does not adjudicate a credibility contest but, rather, engages in an appropriate reasoning process that, read as a whole, adheres to those instructions. *The reasons here, in our view, betray a casuistic result-driven approach, further exacerbated by the trial judge’s comment early in his brief judgment that “there is nothing in [the complainant’s] evidence that would indicate to me that I have to somehow or other reject her testimony ...” (A.B. Digest, F2/19-21)*


----------



## M Feetham

I know that there were a few problems with Instructor/Recruit liasons in St Jean when I was there, partly to blame on booze as well as bad decision by both parties. The school's solution was to restrict Instructors from comsuming alcohol during the recruits course parties at the Bistro. I have never seen Instructor's step over that line, however there was one guy from the Demo platoon that was charged with fraternization, he got something like 14 extras. It was not good.


----------



## Strike

Given the reason for the appeal -- conflicting stories without witnesses -- made me think of this story I just saw the other day.

http://thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1556815&auth=SUE%20YANAGISAWA


----------



## BlueJingo

Wow, I have seen this all to well... somtimes the younger recruits don't even think that it's wrong when it happens. 
They get so swept up in everything _(course/lifestyle)_ that somtimes justice just passes by because they don't acknoledge that what's going on is wrong. 
Mind you what i'm talking about comes short of rape but still the *sexual exploitation * exists. I feel it is just as sick and I hope that thoses classes about harassment (when they are on bmq) focus more on what to look out for so that more people do not become victims.  :'(

BTW...This MCpl has got exactly what was coming to him. I hope those 3 yrs are hell for him.


----------



## ArmyRick

IMO, the MCpl was out of line. Dazed and confused? She was in a drunken stupour? She was a recruit? He should have damn well known, hands off, end of story.

The other part that disturbs me is that the female says this happens more often and that the CF tries to cover it up. Umm, no, we don't. Ask the CF NIS how often this type of behaviour gets reported. As a recruit she is speaking out of turn. I would take her more seriously if say she had 10-15 years in the CF and something to base that remark on.


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I would take her more seriously if say she had 10-15 years in the CF and something to base that remark on.



The topic is recent claims of sexual harassment at recruit school; how would a comment be more credible, based solely upon 10-15 years' additional service since recruit school, when discussing current incidents?


----------



## BlueJingo

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Ask the CF NIS how often this type of behaviour gets reported. As a recruit she is speaking out of turn. I would take her more seriously if say she had 10-15 years in the CF and something to base that remark on.



Are you saying that a new recruit wouldn't be taken seriously that the incident happened or that this behaviour gets hushed?

I agree, the NIS does take this *very * seriously. And by no means do they hush this behaviour
...but i don't think it takes 10-15 yrs experience to know that sometimes senarios get either played up or played down based on who is involved and the situation by those around (i.e. rumours...gossip...)


----------



## Shec

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> IMO, the MCpl was out of line. Dazed and confused? She was in a drunken stupour? She was a recruit? He should have damn well known, hands off, end of story.



Michael O'Leary's signature quote of Meinertzhagen's "Leadership is the practical application of character" is particularly relevant here.  The MCpl, as an NCO responsible for the wellbeing of his people, displayed a lack of character, a lack of leadership, a lack of integrity, that defies everything that was drummed into us on the NCO courses that I am familiar with.  And no doubt that holds for many others who have earned a set of hooks.  Inexcusable.


----------



## Jarnhamar

BlueJingo said:
			
		

> Are you saying that a new recruit wouldn't be taken seriously that the incident happened or that this behaviour gets hushed?
> 
> I agree, the NIS does take this *very * seriously. And by no means do they hush this behaviour
> ...but i don't think it takes 10-15 yrs experience to know that sometimes senarios get either played up or played down based on who is involved and the situation by those around (i.e. rumours...gossip...)



A recruit suggesting or implying that this happens *often* in the army is speaking out of their lanes.
If I have a grand total of 4 months in the military and I say officers are always screwed up and making dumb decisions then I am speaking out of my lane.  I'm making an accusation not based on personal experience but rumor and very likely second and third hand information.
if I say since I've been in the army I've only seen bad decisions from whomever... then thats another story.

A recruit talking about what the CF is covering up? Needs more time in to make that call.


----------



## ArmyRick

Thank you, flawed Design, that was exactly my point.


----------



## BlueJingo

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> A recruit suggesting or implying that this happens *often* in the army is speaking out of their lanes.
> If I have a grand total of 4 months in the military and I say officers are always screwed up and making dumb decisions then I am speaking out of my lane.  I'm making an accusation not based on personal experience but rumor and very likely second and third hand information.
> if I say since I've been in the army I've only seen bad decisions from whomever... then thats another story.
> 
> A recruit talking about what the CF is covering up? Needs more time in to make that call.



Ah.... i see your point thank you.


----------



## old medic

Ex-soldier cleared in sex assault
By TONY BLAIS, SUN MEDIA
The Edmonton Sun 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/10/31/11589936-sun.html



> EDMONTON - A jury yesterday found a former Edmonton reserve unit soldier not guilty of raping a female recruit, ending what he calls "almost five-and-a-half years of hell."
> 
> The acquittal of Orman Boyd Savage, 40, which resulted after just over an hour of deliberations by jurors, came following the second trial for the full-time electrician after the Court of Appeal of Alberta quashed a 2007 conviction earlier this year and ordered a retrial.
> 
> A smiling Savage, who spent five months and a week behind bars, said he was happy his ordeal is finally over.
> 
> "All I can say is that I am glad to see that this nightmare is over after five and a half years and to finally see justice actually be done," said Savage, a married father of two sons, adding the experience was "really tough" on both him and his family.
> 
> "It was a nightmare for me and a nightmare for my family," said Savage. "I knew I was innocent and I wasn't going to stop saying that no matter what happened."
> 
> The former reserve sergeant noted the acquittal came the day before Halloween, which is his wedding anniversary.
> 
> "I couldn't have hoped to give her a better anniversary present than this," said Savage, who is also hoping to be reinstated into the military. He was released in 2008.
> 
> Savage had been accused of sexually assaulting a then-21-year-old female recruit in a bathroom stall at the Debney Armoury on Roper Road after a July 30, 2004, party celebrating the end of a basic training course.
> 
> The woman, who can't be identified under a publication ban, testified Savage had raped her, but said there was a lot she couldn't remember due to blacking out and suffering a concussion when her head was slammed into a wall.
> 
> Savage told jurors it was the recruit who had come onto him after he had gone into the bathroom to help her because she was vomiting from having drunk too much.
> 
> Savage testified the woman had fallen backwards and when he picked her up, she threw her arms around his neck and tried to kiss him.
> 
> He said he tried to get away, but hit the toilet and fell backwards. He then saw stars and the next thing he knew, he was on top of the toilet and she was on top of him.
> 
> Savage was convicted in provincial court and sentenced to three years in prison after a judge rejected his version as "ludicrous" and accepted the woman's testimony.
> 
> However, an appeal court overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial after ruling the judge had failed to properly use the Supreme Court legal test used in cases where both the alleged victim and the accused give opposing versions in their testimony.


----------



## Dean22

Absolutely ridiculous, the man's story has so many plot holes it's ridiculous.

By Canadian law even if she was intoxicated (and apparently under the effects of a concussion) she was not in the correct state of mind to deciding to have sex or not.

Why did Savage enter the ladies washroom to hold her hair? Why didn't someone else? Why didn't Savage feel it was part of his duty as a NCO to look out for his recruit rather than take advantage of their drunken stupor? 

How many drinks were given to the recruit by Savage?


Now, here's more food for thought:

Savage said that the girl had been on top of him and was making sexual advances on him when they were both sitting on the toilet.

Let's say the worse thing she could be wearing was a dress and underwear and Savage was in jeans and a shirt.

If the girl was on top of him is someone actually *ACTUALLY* believing that she unbuttoned his jeans took them down and took off her underwear when she "fell down on him" and had already had a concussion and severely drunk to the point she probably couldn't even count the cash to pay for a drink.

The simple fact is it is very obvious that Savage was the one more in control of his situation and his state of being drunk. Savage most likely did the undressing for both people. Also, I doubt he was forced into it as it is most likely a small girl vs. him a guy.

The guy also played the fact that this court case took five years and details are forgotten especially after being in a drunken/concussed state.


People need to use their thinking caps here and understand what the testimonies really say. Key details are left out but you can still see what they are saying. "I was helping her puke by holding her hair and she knocked me over on the toilet" = I was in control of the situation, at the very least more so than her.

"She had a concussion and was very drunk to the point of puking and blacking out" =

How the hell did she initiate sex? She took off your pants and hers too after magically obtaining a 10 second sober period? No.

She probably kissed him but did not initiate sex.

Why was the cadet in the story previous on this thread sentenced to jail for kissing but this man isn't for sex with a woman who's out of her mind?


Clothing evidence has to be used I believe as well as each person's state of mind. I remember a case a while ago with 8 female Wendy's employees against the male manager saying he was putting his hand down their shirts while buttoned up and grabbing their breasts. However, it was proven that it's physically impossible to put your hand down the uniform to the breast and then one of the girls admitted all 8 of them had been in a devised lie.


As for the issue of the recruit saying "this happens a lot and it's hushed up".

How would she know? Maybe she felt it was hushed up because rumors can poison the evidence tree especially if so many people are talking about it was 3rd hand knowledge so it was better for her it was hushed up.

As for the comment of "this happens a lot".

She feels that way most likely because she has maybe heard someone say before that rape happens in the military (like the rest of the world holy crap!) and because it had happened to her she felt that she was part of a large group of women who were raped but she didn't know about them.

However, I must say that only 1/5 women who are raped actually report the offense. 


And on the topic of military and rape:

I am not quite sure how it is in the Canadian Forces. I am sure the Canadian Forces is full of respectful individuals who can control their hormones and there are always the sour apples that are brought into the CF from the civy world.

Remember, these rapists, criminals, etc are all from the civilian world especially before the military. The military isn't perfect for recruiting and can't read minds or do full personality tests so some people that are bad do get in but I would say the CF is hugely better than the civilian world in terms of the amount of bad apples.


The CF at the very least is 10,000 times better than the US Navy. I don't mean to disrespect the service as a whole but I have read a book of a female in the US navy where gang bangs are apparently rampant and over 60% of her female peers participated in it consensual or not. This was more so proven by the study released at the same time by the US military about these percentages.


Anyways, that's my 2 cents. Savage should be in jail and not allowed back into the CF in my opinion.


It's a complicated issue that I feel he got off due to the length of the trial and the difficulty in remembering a trial that long ago in that state of mind.

Don't  :mg: me please >.<


----------



## SeanNewman

geo said:
			
		

> WRT ongoing problem & hushed-up allegations...



If there's one thing history has proven, it's that the only way to 100% solve a problem is sweep it under the rug and cross your fingers.

[/tongue-in-cheek]


----------



## Journeyman

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Absolutely ridiculous, the man's story has so many plot holes it's ridiculous.



Wow. A court-instructed and monitored jury found him "not guilty." The case was not dismissed on technicalities; he was not merely acquitted because the prosecution failed to make its case; he was actually found *not guilty*.

Yet you weigh in here combining the factual credibility of Fox News and the in-depth analysis of Entertainment Tonight...hypothesizing on their state of mind, dress, activities, body size, assuming that she kissed him....and (WTF?) how things _really are_ in the US Navy.



> People need to use their thinking caps here....


Shame some insist on tinfoil.  :


----------



## Haggis

Thanks for that reasoned and well thought out bit of legal conjecture, Dean22.  Clearly, you are more aware of what happened that night (and able to prove it) than seasoned investigators and the Crown.

Can you now tell us who killed Kennedy?

Mods, how about a change in the thread title to "Reservist found Not Guilty of raping recruit"?


----------



## Loachman

Is there an opening coming up on one of the CSI series?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The man was found 'Not Guilty'. I'll apologise to Dean22 and his armchair Perry Mason Club irregulars for attempting, and proving, that idiots can be found everywhere. Thanks for coming out in the open. Next time you'll be on the Warning Sytem for being wwaaaayyyy out of your lanes.

Until something new comes along and the judiciary reopens this case, this thread is locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## mariomike

"Ex-reservist should be compensated for flawed probe: expert":
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/12/21/edmonton-reservist-assault-probe.html

Ex-reservist should be compensated for flawed probe: expert
Last Updated: Monday, December 21, 2009 | 11:29 AM MT 
CBC News 

A former Edmonton reservist found not guilty of sexual assault should receive compensation from the Canadian Armed Forces after an investigation by military police was found to have flaws during his trial, according to a military expert.

"Clearly, something went desperately wrong here," said Bob Bergen, an adjunct professor with the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
"I've seen less egregious cases than this go to compensation and I think something has to be done to redress this."

In October, a jury found Orman Savage, 40, not guilty of sexually assaulting a female recruit. Savage was accused of sexually assaulting the woman, then 21, in a large bathroom stall at a military party in Edmonton end of July 2004. Her identity is protected by a court-ordered publication ban.

It was Savage's second trial on the sexual assault charge. He was originally found guilty by a provincial court judge in 2007 and sentenced to three years in prison. But the Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial last April.

During both trials, the court heard the complainant got drunk the night in question and was throwing up in the bathroom. Savage came to help her.
She alleged he sexually assaulted her. Savage testified the young recruit had come onto him.
The jury found him not guilty after deliberating for just over an hour.

The acquittal meant that Savage's legal nightmare, which began five and a half years earlier, was over. But he is left with questions about the military investigation that led to the charge being laid in the first place.

"They had made up their mind as to my guilt, I guess, already," Savage said. "And they didn't pursue or want to pursue any other information that was contrary to that."
The original investigation was conducted by a military police officer who was starting a one-year internship with the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service in 2004.

According to an agreed statement of facts entered at the second trial, the investigation was plagued by mistakes. Evidence, including a T-shirt of the complainant's, was not seized or sent for DNA analysis.

The scene of the alleged attack wasn't sealed until mid-August or checked for forensic evidence. Witnesses were not interviewed in a timely fashion. The complainant was not kept apart and interviewed separately from her mother, another potential witness in the investigation.
The case was never referred to the RCMP or the Edmonton Police Service.

Well-known Edmonton criminal defence lawyer Brian Beresh represented Savage during the second trial.
"When I looked at the case closely, I just couldn't see how he had been convicted," Beresh said.

The military's National Investigation Service can deal with sexual assaults but it may also request help from a civilian police force. Beresh wondered why this did not happen in Savage's case.

"Had they gotten one investigator involved — one only — who would have overseen what's happening — quarterbacked the investigation — this would never have happened," he said.
The military refused to do a taped interview on the issue. A spokesperson said the Forces never comment on how investigations are conducted.

Savage hopes to recoup his legal fees, which he estimates are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But he also believes the military's National Investigation Service needs to do a better job.
"I hope that in the future that they make it so they get more training, better training, different training," Savage said.

"If they're going to be put into a position where they are supposed to be the best of the best and doing internal affairs for the Canadian Armed Forces, they should have the training and the background behind them to be able to do their job properly."
The Crown has decided not to appeal the outcome of the trial. 

Savage was a master corporal before he was kicked out of the military last year because of his conviction. He has applied to be reinstated.


----------



## 57Chevy

allegations and claims and even more allegations on link to boot. :UNAPC:
What ever happened to "no names no pack drill"?..........Oh......the media ;D


----------



## TimBit

I saw the charge sheet and have to say, it also looks SOMEWHAT like the women involved might have had second thoughts about the whole thing... the day after. Anyway, I guess it's better to let the trial go and see what happens.


----------



## dapaterson

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3543

Sexual Assault Charges Laid For Incidents
CFNIS NR – 2010-12 - September 9, 2010

LONDON, Ont. – The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), the investigative arm of the Canadian Forces Military Police, charged a member of the Canadian Forces (CF) for sexual assault and other charges today in relation to incidents alleged to have happened while he was performing recruit medical examinations in southwestern Ontario on behalf of the Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre (CFRC) Detachment London. 

Petty Officer Second Class James Wilks was charged with two counts of Sexual Assault contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act (NDA) and pursuant to section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), three counts of Behaving in a Disgraceful Manner contrary to section 93 of the NDA, and four counts of Negligent Performance of Duty contrary to section 124 of the NDA.

“The Military Police consider sexual assault to be a serious matter and will thoroughly investigate any such allegations related to Canadian Forces personnel, civilian DND employees, or any other person on DND property,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Gilles Sansterre, Commanding Officer of the CFNIS.

The accused is performing administrative duties pending the outcome of the judicial process.

If anyone has any information pertinent to this investigation, they are requested to contact the CFNIS at 1-866-698-1119.

The CFNIS is an independent Military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, DND employees and CF personnel serving in Canada and abroad. 

- 30 -


----------



## PMedMoe

Military officer charged with sexual assault

LONDON, Ont. — A military officer based in London is facing nine charges after at least two women trying to join the Canadian Forces say they were sexually assaulted at a recruiting centre.

James Wilks, a petty officer second class, faces two criminal counts of sexual assault and seven military charges, including behaving in a disgraceful manner and negligence in the performance of his duties.

The allegations are that Wilks — a military medical technician who’s been with the Forces for 25 years — sexually assaulted new recruits between Sept. 2008 and Dec. 2009 while performing physical examinations.

More at link


----------



## Tank Troll

Are Soldiers getting dumber or are thing just getting reported more. It seems there is more and more of this in the news or have I just been wearing blinders ???


----------



## Trueblue

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Are Soldiers getting dumber or are thing just getting reported more. It seems there is more and more of this in the news or have I just been wearing blinders ???



My guess would be during war times, a lot of focus is put on the military in the media... at least more so than the already large amount.


----------



## medicineman

As he's not yet been tried, much less convicted, can we delay building the gallows please?  I know the guy concerned and am rather surprised by this - perhaps he's guilty of poor judgement in not having a chaperone with him, we don't know as yet.  These people may have been rejected medically based on his findings and are laying these charges frivolously - again we don't know.  I can say this - I'll be watching closely, as will many co-workers I'm sure, as when this is all said and done, there sure as Hell will be a BOI putting out a pile of reccomendations ensuring there is no way this will occur again.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

medicineman said:
			
		

> As he's not yet been tried, much less convicted, can we delay building the gallows please?  I know the guy concerned and am rather surprised by this - perhaps he's guilty of poor judgement in not having a chaperone with him, we don't know as yet.  These people may have been rejected medically based on his findings and are laying these charges frivolously - again we don't know.  I can say this - I'll be watching closely, as will many co-workers I'm sure, as when this is all said and done, there sure as Hell will be a BOI putting out a pile of reccomendations ensuring there is no way this will occur again.
> 
> MM



I agree. From what I have read here, he's got 25 in and a clean record.


----------



## Danjanou

*Ergo consider this the standard mod comment that as of now this thread will be stringently monitored and inappropriate comments, speculatiosn etc will be deleted and the poster may be introduced to the site warning system. *

Staff


----------



## eurowing

"OTTAWA — The Canadian military has investigated just five reports of sexual assault in Afghanistan since 2004, with only one investigation leading to a guilty verdict — a number that contrasts sharply with the picture painted in a new book about a female soldier.


In one of her letters, Cpt. Nichola Goddard, who in 2006 became the first Canadian female combat death, refers to a week in the camp during which there were six rapes in one week. Other letters, many of which were sent to her husband, Jason Beam, illustrate an environment where women working on the base were frequent targets of sexual harassment, constantly being ogled."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Military+confirms+sexual+assault+Afghan+base/3628390/story.html#ixzz11exJ1ozz

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Military+confirms+sexual+assault+Afghan+base/3628390/story.html#ixzz11ewX9eGX

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Capt+Nichola+Goddard+described+repeated+rape+cases+Canadian+military+base/3623541/story.html


----------



## Gunner98

Two separate facts here - Canadians being raped and rapes on a Base of 17,000 soldiers of which Canadians were a minority. I would submit that most of the ogling takes place in the gyms because many armies do not allow their female soldiers to go out in public in anything other than a uniform.


----------



## HItorMiss

*sigh*

Of course Woman are "Ogled" hell my wife endures it all the time. It is the nature of the beast sadly and I for one can openly and freely admit that when I have been deployed and saw an attractive woman I stared to (not proud of it but I did it) You go months on end sitting with the same smelly guys and then suddenly you see a woman and maybe she just got out of the shower and so now she smells very very nice of course that draws attention BUT I have never ever seen a CF soldier do more then stare maybe take a deep inhale and then perhaps maybe make a comment out of ear shot of the woman that was more then a little suggestive. Not once have I seen a CF member make unwanted advances to Female soldier.

Hell I have heard the things guys have said about my wife to their fellow soldiers who happen to be my friends or her friends and you know they just make us laugh one of them is memorable in that a guy said she should be on a particular porn site which made us both roar with laughter.


As for the Rapes yup they occur and the statistic is heavily on the American side of the house I haven't personally heard of it happening to a Canadian done by a fellow Canadian not to say it hasn't happened as the one clearly did but one case in 9 years is a damn good run really.


----------



## OldSolduer

How many went unreported? That would be interesting.


----------



## PMedMoe

Neither incident reported in the article was perpetrated by a CF soldier.  I personally find this article lacking in specific details, such as the comment about the book about the female soldier - American?  Canadian? - the article doesn't say.

Yes, women are going to be "ogled".   As BM said, it's the nature of the beast.  When I was in Bosnia, we had only five females in our camp and yes, we all got stared at, the Carabinieri being the worst offenders.  This is regardless of what we were wearing (uniform, PT kit).

On the other hand, I recall some females wearing "feminine" (read revealing) clothing* in A'stan.  Does that make them "deserve" to be stared at?  No, but it is going to happen and people should realize that.  Not to mention, what really constitutes "assault"?  I've heard of females putting in harassment charges for someone touching them on the shoulder or back, and not in a sexual manner, either.

There is going to be joking and such, and obviously, some people are more comfortable with it than others.

And to echo BM again, yes, we were warned about the "American side" of KAF when we first got there.  To be specific, it was the civilian area we were warned about.

*IMHO, clothing like that is not appropriate for the camps.  Save it for HLTA.  We had a dress code when we were there, even in the gym.


----------



## HItorMiss

Last time I was in KAF I did see somethings that were a bit shocking... Such as woman in high heels and short skirts with very tight tops (I have no idea what country they were from) and full going to the bar make up. I was a little put off when I saw this on more then one woman. Yup they were being stared at (I was staring too) but they had to know that was going to happen it was IMO attention seeking.

I haven't seen Canadian woman (that I know of personally) dressed like that sure they have worn civis and some of them are feminine somewhat but never overtly sexual just the usual fashion of the times. The new policy I have heard of in KAF is that you are not allowed Civis only Uniform and PT gear. Not sure if this will cut down on anything but it a controlable measure I suppose.

As for ogling in the gym yup that happens heck it happens here in Canada too so nothing new there. It is why my wife goes to the gym when there is alomst no one there both overseas and in Canada.


----------



## ModlrMike

Having spent 14 months in and around KAF, I recall once having to warn my troops about the dangers for females walking about the camp alone at night. I certainly don't recollect six rapes being reported to me, but I can check my OGp book and see.

As to the ogling and harassment... I have to agree with others. As distasteful and immature as it is, it's going to happen.


----------



## HItorMiss

I don't think the ogling is distastaeful or immature I think it is pretty much normal and natural. You take a guy away from his wife/girlfriend etc etc for months and give him no outlet and well he is going to look when the time comes, same goes for the woman (though usually they are more discret but I have seen more then one do it generaly in the gym LOL).

What would be distasteful and immature would be saying or doing inappropriate things to the person who has drawn your attention IMO


----------



## OldSolduer

Ogling notwithstanding, IMO the media (or some within the media) have an axe to grind...or are just clamoring for headlines.


----------



## McG

eurowing said:
			
		

> "OTTAWA — The Canadian military has investigated just five reports of sexual assault in Afghanistan since 2004, with only one investigation leading to a guilty verdict — a number that contrasts sharply with the picture painted in a new book about a female soldier.


I arrived in KAF somewhere around the same time as Capt Nichola Goddard.  At the time, KAF was still a US base with only a smattering of international representation.  Shortly after arriving, rumours started flying through the ranks about the rampant danger to women of rapes and gang rapes.  When the squadron sergeant major investigated the legitimacy of these rumours, he learned from the US security personnel that there had in fact only been one rape in the preceding months and that the victim was male.

If Nichola were still around to put her comment into perspective today, I suspect she would tell the world that it was based on those initial unfounded rumours.

KAF has the population of a very small city.  It will also, as a result of its size, have incidents of crimes such as would occur in a very small city.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> As to the ogling and harassment... I have to agree with others. As distasteful and immature


Harassment yes, ogling no,



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yes, women are going to be "ogled".   As BM said, it's the nature of the beast.  When I was in Bosnia, we had only five females in our camp and yes, we all got stared at, .



Yup, just as it would happen if the percentage of women to men were reversed..........


----------



## dogger1936

After months in the fob/cop/ god knows where rotation I sure did stare at chicks in KAF. After not seeing women for darn near 4 months it was nice to look at. 

Rape, drug abuse, drinking, extra marital afairs...it all happens....just like in society.


----------



## PanaEng

ogling, the perception of which changes drastically with the culture. Women in Latin America almost expect to have men staring at them.
A friend from Panama was depressed when she initially came to Canada for a visit. She thought that she must not be attractive or that most men on the streets were gay because she did not get much "attention."
That was about 15 yrs ago and attitudes are changing a bit but it is still the norm in most Latin countries.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Haggis

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Rape, drug abuse, drinking, extra marital afairs...it all happens....just like in society.



And we are but a microcosm of Canadian society.  The fact that we are, both internally and externally, held to a higher standard means that the instances of this type of conduct should be (and are) much lower than the Canadian average.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MCG said:
			
		

> When the squadron sergeant major investigated the legitimacy of these rumours, he learned from the US security personnel that there had in fact only been one rape in the preceding months and that the victim was male.



When I was there in 2006/2007 I never heard of any females assaulted. We DID get a warning about a few sexual assaults but they were of British and Dutch soldiers assaulting each other, but those were Males-male.


----------



## marshall sl

This is not new.When we went to FT Lewis  Washington in the 70s and 80s our female soldiers were advised to have a male escort to and from the shacks from the mess due to the number of assaults on women there.


----------



## Armymedic

During 1-07, I was informed through official channels that there were (IIRC) 2 Americans charged with sexual assault of a civilian woman. I do not recall if it happened in KAF or elsewhere in country. I do not recall any other actual verified crimes taking place.


----------



## HItorMiss

The warning is still in effect for KAF no female members should be out at night with out a male escort of large group of woman.

There have been to my knowledge a few cases of reported attacks against both men and woman.


----------



## armyvern

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yup, just as it would happen if the percentage of women to men were reversed..........



It doesn't even have to be reversed. I LOOK at the men too!! Trust me on that. 100% normal and natural on both sides of the fence.

BUT, the last f'n thing on my mind when deploying into a warzone - in a f'n desert - would be what miniskirt and high heels to bring!! Holy crap Moe ... high heels?? Good for a smack upside the head from me just for risking breaking your ankles walking around in them in *sand* when you are on paid duty and at war!! Even putting aside the fact that there's a war happening there ... what sane female wears high heels in the desert!!?? Were these military females or civilian contractors?? This simply blows my mind.

Obviously, the dress regs were required when common sense for appropriate desert wear is not followed.

I am flabberghasted!!  


Edit to add: Upon reading this, it kind of sounds like I'm asking Moe why she would wear high heels. Nope. My "you" would be inclusive of the comment I'd make as I smacked the offender upside the head (which I would do virtually of course ... because one can not _really_ smack someone upside the head [but I'd desperately want to!!]) And, it also seems that it was BM who mentionned that and not Moe.


----------



## mike63

You know something about all this...when I was in Cyprus in 86/87 there were no Canadian military females on tour.  The only females up at the BBC (Blue Beret Camp) where either the camp admin staff, which were local women or the other country contingent's spouses.  The only problem we had was if any of our troops went into Nicosia, Larnaca or down to the leave centre in Ayia Napa and tried to pickup some of the locals. There was only one case of a soldier being 'mailed back home' and that was because he got a girl pregnant (not rape) and her father was going to kill him!

I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed on tour, that's not the point, IMHO all I am saying is that the crap that goes on while on tour, rape(not so much of that in Canada), drug abuse, drinking, extra marital affairs,  is the same crap that goes on while you are back home on any course or TD, I know because on almost every course I have ever been on, I've seen it.  The same thing happened when they opened up ALERT to female troops.  I really don't think this problem will every go away, like they say, boys will be boys that turn into men being men.

I'm sorry if my opinion pisses anyone off, that was not my intent.  I'm just calling a spade a spade because I've been there done that.


----------



## armyvern

mike63 said:
			
		

> You know something about all this...when I was in Cyprus in 86/87 there were no Canadian military females on tour.  The only females up at the BBC (Blue Beret Camp) where either the camp admin staff, which were local women or the other country contingent's spouses.  The only problem we had was if any of our troops went into Nicosia, Larnaca or down to the leave centre in Ayia Napa and tried to pickup some of the locals. There was only one case of a soldier being 'mailed back home' and that was because he got a girl pregnant (not rape) and her father was going to kill him!
> 
> I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed on tour, that's not the point, IMHO all I am saying is that the crap that goes on while on tour, rape(not so much of that in Canada), drug abuse, drinking, extra marital affairs,  is the same crap that goes on while you are back home on any course or TD, I know because on almost every course I have ever been on, I've seen it.  The same thing happened when they opened up ALERT to female troops.  I really don't think this problem will every go away, like they say, boys will be boys that turn into men being men.
> 
> I'm sorry if my opinion pisses anyone off, that was not my intent.  I'm just calling a spade a spade because I've been there done that.



I have no problem with your opinion. I just want to state that "office bopping" is common throughout society ... it's not like this is a CF problem. Oh, and office bopping is not simply a "boy being a boy" --- that's willfull participation by both parties, so I'd guess it's more like "boys & girls being boys & girls". 

I try not to limit "indescretions" to men and make them out to be the beasts and we wimminfolk the distressed damsels ... that myth is so over.


----------



## dogger1936

Men or women it doesnt matter. On our tour to Bosnia two dutch soldiers raped a brit up on Gos P.
Every bad trait thats in civilain world occurs in the army. Drugs robberies car thefts....honestly in my group of soldiers I've dealth with 4xdrug abuse  2x robberies, 1x domestic abuse,1x  animal cruelty, hoarding x2 accounts (grossest stuff ive ever seen in my life) 2 drunk disorderly calls ,1x forgery of documents, 1x rape of youth under 16,....all in the past 6 months, which doesnt cover the AWOL disobeying a lawful command, admin reviews, money stores calling, PMQ housing calling....I've seen it all.

A rape a murder a hit and run accident doesnt surprise me in KAF.


----------



## WrenchBender

Okay, I've been working here in KAF for almost 2 years now, and yes there are things you see that make you wonder. The mini skirt and high heels was more than likely one of the Russian Hair Dressers that works in the AAFES Beauty/Barber shop and probably on her first day here. I've seen it happen more than once, you would be surprised at how some people are dressed when they get off the contract haulers. 
There are almost 5000 Contractors on base or passing thru from FOB's at any given time, these are people of both genders from all over the world (more nations represented than by ISAF). Cultural norms can be deceiving and as previously stated if you can't turn a head now and then you're doing some thing wrong seems to be the mantra of some cultures. 
Most militaries over here have a dress code, Uniform or issued PT Kit, that's it no civvies, no choice. So when a 4' 6" Fillippina walks by wearing skin tight jeans on her 75 lb frame she's going to get looked at, as will the 5' 11" airwoman who could be a model. People are going to look at what is out of the norm to their culture, it's inevitable. For those that have led sheltered lives, or on their first deployment it can be a little overwhelming and will be perceived as being "ogled". Some things just stand out as different to some cultures and therefore earn a second look. 
I'm sure there are instances of sexual assault, as I'm sure there is a prospering sex trade both in and out of uniform. Someone had $25K cash confiscated not too long ago, I wonder were that came from.
KAF is a city in and of itself with people from all corners of the world and needs to be taken for exactly what it is a microcosm of all the worlds cultures.

WrenchBender in KAF


----------



## MedicChick

medicineman said:
			
		

> As he's not yet been tried, much less convicted, can we delay building the gallows please?  I know the guy concerned and am rather surprised by this - perhaps he's guilty of poor judgement in not having a chaperone with him, we don't know as yet.  These people may have been rejected medically based on his findings and are laying these charges frivolously - again we don't know.  I can say this - I'll be watching closely, as will many co-workers I'm sure, as when this is all said and done, there sure as Hell will be a BOI putting out a pile of reccomendations ensuring there is no way this will occur again.
> 
> MM



I guess we shall see very soon, as te court martial is just about finished; for the first three girls who came forward anyway.


----------



## MedicChick

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree. From what I have read here, he's got 25 in and a clean record.



Clean record can be used very lightly here. Considering it is very public news, details will be out soon. Conviction with in the next two days, hopefully sentencing as well!


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Lt.-Col. J.G. Perron, a Canadian Forces (CF) military judge, has sentenced Mr. James Wilks to 9 months imprisonment for incidents that occurred while he was performing recruit medical examinations in South-Western Ontario on behalf of the Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre (CFRC) Detachment London. In addition, Mr. Wilks was ordered to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registry for 20 years as well as provide DNA samples for the National DNA Databank.
> 
> On April 29, 2011, the Director of Military Prosecutions preferred two counts of sexual assault contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act (NDA), and pursuant to section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), and four counts of breach of trust contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act (NDA), and pursuant to section 122 of the CCC against Petty Officer Second Class (PO2) retired James Wilks. On October 17, 2011, Mr. Wilks was found guilty of one count of sexual assault and four counts of breach of trust.
> 
> The incidents took place at CFRC Detachment London and at the Major G.H. Stirrett Armouries in Sarnia between September 2008 and December 2009.
> 
> As Mr. Wilks is no longer a member of the CF, he will serve his sentence at a civilian facility.
> 
> Mr. Wilks served in the CF for 27 years and was released on April 28, 2011.


CF news release, 12 Dec 11


----------



## medicineman

Oh my...

MM


----------



## X Royal

My question would be why was he released while still facing these charges?
It's not like other cases where release was after the charges were heard & a conviction tendered, even if an appeal followed.


----------



## medicineman

I testified at a CM for a person that had been released pretrial - an Admin Review conducted may have recommended release on admin grounds, despite the upcoming legal events (as was the case for the person I was testifying against).  I was AO for a person with the same issues going on - was released on an AR pending trial for CC and NDA charges.  In Jamie Wilks' case, he may have elected to just to take his release based on time in, or an AR may have recommended it prior to the trial.  

MM


----------



## Rifleman62

We had a fellow in our Bde who was CM twice ( several years apart) for stealing. The second time was after his release. He got a extremely light sentence "hardship in new civilian life" or some such.

Previous to CM one he had been in the shidt for fraudulent travel claim (s).

He bought lotos at a neighborhood gas station, and stiffed a new employee (a kid) $50.00. He never went back to that location.

Not a Fin O, but close.


----------



## X Royal

The way I see it is that an administrative release before the court martial is only a way of saving money as in wages stop. But in the same time it also saves money on the punishment end as sentence is to the civilian system and the forces save money again. 
At the same time punishment is not as severe as the service detention system is left out of the equation.
IMO in case similar to this release should be withheld until charges are finalized.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A reminder:  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canada's constitution, guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.


> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged on Friday a former Canadian Forces Medical Technician for incidents alleged to have occurred while he performed medical exams at a Naval Reserve unit in Thunder Bay and at the Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre in London.
> 
> Ex-Petty Officer, 2nd class (PO 2) James Wilks was charged with the following:
> 
> four counts of Sexual Assault, contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act, and pursuant to section 271 of the Criminal Code; and
> ten counts of Breach of Trust, contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act, and contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code.
> It is alleged that between 2002 and 2009, the accused performed medical examinations on CF recruits and serving members contrary to prescribed medical procedures.
> 
> In September 2010, the CFNIS laid nine charges against Ex-PO 2 Wilks in relation to similar incidents. The alleged victims of these new charges came forward after the Military Police made a public appeal for other possible victims to step forward. Military Police again ask that anyone who believes they may also have been victimized contact them at 1-705-423-1497 ....


CF news release, 23 Jan 12


----------



## MedCorps

Ouch.  Round Two.   

MC


----------



## The Bread Guy

MedCorps said:
			
		

> Ouch.  Round Two.
> 
> MC


Often happens when other victims hear of the first round of charges and come forward.


----------



## GeorgeD

It is probably a stupid question, but how could the CF Release someone and still Court Martial them? I thought you had to be in the military at the time of your CM, or is it that the crime(s) had to be commited while in the military?


----------



## The Bread Guy

GD said:
			
		

> It is probably a stupid question, but how could the CF Release someone and still Court Martial them? I thought you had to be in the military at the time of your CM, or is it that the crime(s) had to be commited while in the military?


Question asked earlier....


			
				X Royal said:
			
		

> My question would be why was he released while still facing these charges?  It's not like other cases where release was after the charges were heard & a conviction tendered, even if an appeal followed.


.... with some answers earlier in the thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/96457/post-1098145.html#msg1098145
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/96457/post-1098162.html#msg1098162


----------



## BernDawg

Public disclosure.
http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2011/wilks-jk-eng.asp


----------



## The Bread Guy

Two reminders, folks:
1)  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canada's constitution, guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (including new charges).
2)  What one of my mod colleagues said before:


			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> *.... consider this the standard mod comment that as of now this thread will be stringently monitored and inappropriate comments, speculatiosn etc will be deleted and the poster may be introduced to the site warning system. *
> 
> Staff


*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## mariomike

Saw this item on Paramedic Network News ( PNN ). 
FYI

April 17, 2012 
"A Sarnia-area woman is seeking $1.3 million in a civil suit launched against the military medic who assaulted her and against the Department of National Defence.":
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/04/17/19645421.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bump with the latest ....

*A reminder:  Under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "any person charged with an offence has the right .... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"*​


> The Canadian Forces (CF) National Investigation Service charged on Wednesday a former CF medical technician for incidents alleged to have occurred while he performed medical exams at a Naval Reserve unit in Thunder Bay and at the CF Recruiting Centre in London.
> 
> Petty Officer 2nd class (Retired) James Wilks was charged with the following:
> 
> 
> eight counts of sexual assault, contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act, and pursuant to section 271 of the Criminal Code; and
> nine counts of breach of trust, contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act, and contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code.
> 
> It is alleged that between 2002 and 2009, the accused performed medical examinations on CF recruits and serving members contrary to prescribed medical procedures. In September 2010 and January 2012, the CF National Investigation Service laid a total of 20 charges against Petty Officer 2nd class Wilks (Retired) in relation to similar incidents. The alleged victims of these new charges came forward after the Military Police made a public appeal for other possible victims to step forward ....


CFNIS Info-machine, 13 Dec 12


----------



## lubi125

Do excuse me if you find the title somewhat inappropriate or obscene.

So I recently dropped off my applications, but my parents and a person of great influence have been "warning" me of how I might get raped by other men whilst in the military, probably in the effort of deterring from joining the Army overall. I currently am applying in the Reserve for Field Artillery, considering I get through the application process, pass the tests and get to BMQ, is there truly a reasonable possibility this may happen? I've started even question if my choice was good after all and that it may actually happen that I get "rapped" or "gang raped" whilst in the military.

Forgive me if this sounds completely absurd to some, but they (or he) make it seem like it _will_ happen to me.

Has anyone ever heard of such occurrences in the reserves or even in the CF in general?

Thanks !


----------



## northernboy_24

NO, full stop.  If it were to happen then the offending parties would be subject to the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. They would be charged, tried and put in jail if convicted as every other citizen of Canada would if a similar offence occurred in a civilian organization.  Anything that is illegal in Canada is illegal in the Canadian Forces.  Whoever told you that is completely wrong and if it is a serving member of the CF then they need to get smacked and realize the damage they are causing the reputation of the CF and its members.

I really hope that they are just kidding with you.  If not then they need to grow up.


----------



## Journeyman

Maybe it happens back in the motherland; not here.  Welcome to Canada.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I guess the hundreds of women who post regularly on army.ca have just gotten used to being raped so they don't mention it anymore.


----------



## lubi125

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe it happens back in the motherland; not here.  Welcome to Canada.



Ah yeah thinking of it, that person of great influence I was talking about did do military service in China... but I was born in Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy

I can say during 11 years of Reserve service, I never even HEARD of such a thing, and you're going to hear a lot of the same from others.

I'm *very* curious:  where did your parents and this "person of great influence" get this idea?  First-hand experience?  "They say..."?  This actually happened to someone?  In Canada?  In the Reserves?  How do they "know" this allegedly happens?



			
				lubi125 said:
			
		

> Ah yeah thinking of it, that person of great influence I was talking about did do military service in China...


I see ....


----------



## Sig_Des

The only thing that'll rape you in the CF in paperwork...I guess by that reasoning, an annual PRV could be considered a gang rape. But that's it....


----------



## SentryMAn

Wasn't there a movie out about the US Military that involved a Generals daughter getting raped on a training excercise or something?

I think these "people of higher influence" have been watching too many movies and other things.


----------



## Occam

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a movie out about the US Military that involved a Generals daughter getting raped on a training excercise or something?



Coincidentally enough, that movie would be "The General's Daughter".


----------



## the 48th regulator

Locked.

Really.  No, Really, you think that your question was appropriate, considering you were born and raised in Canada??  Were you raised in a bubble?

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/sex-assault-complaints-against-former-petty-officer-probed/article11448906/


Sex assault complaints against former petty officer probed 
ALISON AULD and SUE BAILEY 
The Canadian Press

Published Sunday, Apr. 21 2013, 10:57 PM EDT 

The Department of National Defence is investigating its handling of sexual assault complaints involving a convicted former medical technician who is facing 31 new charges, The Canadian Press has learned.

Complaints involving James Wilks were mishandled, says a lawyer for one of his victims who is suing the former medical technician and the military.

MORE ON LINK


----------



## dapaterson

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/former-commanding-officer-at-cfb-wainwright-charged-with-sex-assault-1.1264161


Please remember in posting that all individuals are innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I have no comments on the story itself, but didn't know the Base Commander in Wainwright was a Maj, always thought it was a LCol/Col billet.


----------



## REDinstaller

The rank was changed last year, now know as the base major. Kind of toothless considering CMTC and WATC have more rank.


----------



## PAdm

Interesting story. I am hoping it is some misunderstanding as I do not want to see another "guy in charge does something stupid" news story. Time will tell.


----------



## PMedMoe

More back ground here: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/base+commander+wainwright+charged+with+assault/8328629/story.html


----------



## cupper

Seriously? "Porn and Chicken" Nights?  :facepalm:


----------



## Kat Stevens

Could be worse, in Petawawa it might have been "porn WITH chicken" night.


----------



## George Wallace

PAdm said:
			
		

> Interesting story. I am hoping it is some misunderstanding as I do not want to see another "guy in charge does something stupid" news story. Time will tell.



Now the link has been made back to Sex Tapes at RMC, it may indicate something a little more than "some misunderstanding" or "guy in charge does something stupid" news story.


----------



## PAdm

cupper said:
			
		

> Seriously? "Porn and Chicken" Nights?  :facepalm:


This made me laugh. Bringing back memories of the $5 roast beef lunch Buffett (and a beer) while there was talent on stage at The Big A in Winnipeg...


----------



## riggermade

The porn and chicken did not happen in Petawawa it happened when he was at RMC


----------



## PMedMoe

riggermade said:
			
		

> The porn and chicken did not happen in Petawawa it happened when he was at RMC



No one said it happened in Pet.  The statement was "_might_ have been".....


----------



## my72jeep

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> No one said it happened in Pet.  The statement was "_might_ have been".....



New guys don't get the chicken/Pet. reference.


----------



## PMedMoe

my72jeep said:
			
		

> New guys don't get the chicken/Pet. reference.



Pretty sure riggermade isn't a new guy.   :nod:


----------



## my72jeep

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Pretty sure riggermade isn't a new guy.   :nod:


True, I'm sorry I never look at the name.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

He'd think "London and chicken porn".....


----------



## Jarnhamar

November 11th is a popular day for alcohol related charges.



The media will love this story, especially considering his past allegations.


----------



## my72jeep

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> He'd think "London and chicken porn".....



 ;D


----------



## eurowing

I can't speak for pre 75, but at least until the mid 80's, porn was common on the projector or the VCR in wet canteens and mess tents. Both in the Army and Air force.  Times have certainly changed.


----------



## Infanteer

Well, you wouldn't have guessed it, but we've got women in the Forces these days, and not all of them are keen to watch some lady get banged on the big screen....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, you wouldn't have guessed it, but we've got women in the Forces these days, and not all of them are keen to watch some lady get banged on the big screen....



Dating would have been a lot easier if someone had only told me that years ago.....................


----------



## eurowing

I got out in 2008, I was very ok with the changes. I was never really a fan of public porn.


----------



## riggermade

eurowing said:
			
		

> I got out in 2008, I was very ok with the changes. I was never really a fan of public porn.
> [/quote
> 
> Never saw the attraction in a bunch of guys getting s**tfaced together and watching porn


----------



## Loachman

eurowing said:
			
		

> I can't speak for pre 75, but at least until the mid 80's, porn was common on the projector or the VCR in wet canteens and mess tents. Both in the Army and Air force.



Twenty-four hours a day in the 427 Squadron Mess Tent during RV 85, until the CO decreed that it would go off during meal hours...

It was only ever the same three guys* sitting at the front hour after hour who seemed to pay any attention to it anyway.

I think that chicken was served once or twice as well.

The Mess Tent was also a "hazard" on the Squadron Ponk course, between a tee (beer can) and a hole (buried 48 ounce juice can), so a tennis ball would blast through the opening at one end and out through the other, presuming that nobody was struck in between (I think that that cost the player points), at random intervals.

*And no, Moe, I wasn't one of them.


----------



## GAP

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Dating would have been a lot easier if someone had only told me that years ago.....................



Despite that.....you survived and procreated/prospered...... ;D


----------



## 392

eurowing said:
			
		

> I can't speak for pre 75, but at least until the mid 80's, porn was common on the projector or the VCR in wet canteens and mess tents. Both in the Army and Air force.  Times have certainly changed.



I can recall being able to watch soft core porn at lunch at Yogi's in Petawawa while eating a Yogi Burger and having a pint  I remember being in there one day when a guy went up to the bartender and asked to have it turned off, only to be berated by some female soldiers at one of the tables....good times...

Of course, to my young, naive eyes at the time, I could not believe they were showing what they were during daytime hours....

Edit: Sorry for the uber derail....


----------



## Takeniteasy

There is a big difference between watching professional porn and a woman who is unknowingly being taped!


----------



## Journeyman

IRONMAN3 said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between watching professional porn and a woman who is unknowingly being taped!


Exactly!        Sorry, no sympathy for the scumbag here


----------



## Shadowolf

AFAIK it was his roomates who did the taping and the sexing, which is why the charges against him were dropped.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> AFAIK it was his roomates who did the taping and the sexing, which is why the charges against him were dropped.




But it *appears* that he was there and didn't prevent what was, at the very least, disgraceful conduct, if not sexual assault; and it even *appears* that he encouraged the crimes. In so far as my understanding of that past situation is correct (and I would be happy to be proven wrong) then I'm with Journeyman on this one.


----------



## a78jumper

Only hope the police have got their act together on this one unlike a rather high profile sexual assault case involving another CO in 1995 who got off, thanks to bungling MPs.Another Logistics Officer BTW. I assume he is being charged by the RCMP in this case.


----------



## cupper

a78jumper said:
			
		

> Another Logistics Officer BTW.



And this matters because ...


----------



## garb811

a78jumper said:
			
		

> Only hope the police have got their act together on this one unlike a rather high profile sexual assault case involving another CO in 1995 who got off, thanks to bungling MPs.Another Logistics Officer BTW. I assume he is being charged by the RCMP in this case.


Yep, the RCMP have taken to having CFNIS do their press releases.


----------



## a78jumper

I did not say to be flippant. Many charges are passed over to the civilian authorities...eg drunk driving ,assault.


----------



## garb811

a78jumper said:
			
		

> I did not say to be flippant. Many charges are passed over to the civilian authorities...eg drunk driving ,assault.


That hasn't happened for years and years.  MP have jurisdiction to investigate the full spectrum of offences within the Criminal Code on CF establishments.  Just because certain offences don't get tried in the Military system either due to law (ie. Murder, Manslaughter, Abduction of children) or policy (impaired driving, domestic assault etc) doesn't mean civilian police have the jurisdiction to investigate them on Base.


----------



## vonGarvin

As far as I can tell, Maj Y has no convictions, therefore, he has a clean record.  As far as the current charges, as stated earlier, Maj Y is to be considered innocent.  

So, until convicted, nothing to see here.


----------



## PMedMoe

Army recruiting gave unnecessary breast exam, witness tells court martial

Women testifying that a former military medic performed unauthorized breast exams on them are inventing stories, some of them to bolster their $1.4-million civil suits, the man’s lawyer said at a court martial in London Tuesday.

But the prosecution says the 16 women’s stories are so similar they clearly show a pattern of impropriety by former petty officer James Wilks, charged with 10 counts of sexual assault and 16 counts of breach of trust.

More at link


----------



## pbi

medicineman said:
			
		

> Oh my...
> 
> MM



Don't feel bad. Two officers I knew, and held very high opinions of, were both found guilty of serious sex-related offences. Both times I asked myself how I could have been so off the mark in my estimation of them, until I realized that these people make an art of concealment and denial.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Guilty.


> A military judge has rendered a guilty verdict in the sex assault court martial of a former Canadian Forces medic on more than two dozen charges.
> 
> Retired petty officer James Wilks will now face sentencing on 25 sexual assault and breach of trust charges involving 16 women over six years.
> 
> In a West Quebec courtroom near Ottawa, military judge Lt.-Col. Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil handed down the verdict after reading a detailed summary of the case that concluded the testimony of the women should be believed.
> 
> (....)
> 
> In all, Wilks faced 16 charges of breach of trust and 10 sex assault counts. He was acquitted of a lone breach of trust charge.
> 
> Prosecutors and defence lawyers were meeting in the judge's chambers to discuss a possible sentencing date.
> 
> The sentencing hearing was expected to take several days ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Next step:


> .... The sentencing hearing for former Canadian Armed Forces medical technician, Petty Officer 2nd Class James Wilks, in relation to sexual assault and breach of trust charges, begins next week. The hearing is open to the media and the public.
> 
> When:
> Monday, February 24, 2014, starting at 10:00 a.m.
> 
> Media are asked to arrive no later than 9:15 a.m. to ensure access and receive a brief.
> 
> Where:
> Asticou Centre - 241 Boulevard Cité-des-Jeunes, Gatineau, Quebec
> 
> Courtroom: Block 2600 - Room 2601
> 
> What:
> On November 15, 2013, a Standing Court Martial found Mr. Wilks guilty of 25 out of 26 charges. Of the 10 sexual assault and 16 breach of trust charges against retired Petty Officer 2nd Class James Wilks, Military Judge, Lieutenant-Colonel Louis-Vincent d’Auteuil, pronounced Mr. Wilks guilty of: all 10 sexual assault charges and 15 of 16 breach of trust charges. Sixteen complainants testified during the trial, which took place in Gatineau, Quebec, and in London, Ontario. The court martial is in relation to offences committed between 2003 and 2009, while he was performing medical examinations in Thunder Bay and London, Ontario ....


----------



## FlightSergeantRose

Wilks did my medical when I joined up. I have had the hernia test done numerous times and his was the 'least uncomfortable' compared to the others, although he did make me cough 3 or 4 times, which the others had not. I remember him telling me I had "flat feet" and asking if I had any foot pain or any other foot issues. I told him that I have never had any issues with my feet (which was the truth), and he preceded to pretty much interrogate me about it. For some reason he couldn't believe that I could have flat feet and it not be a medical problem. Here I am 12 years later and my feet are just fine.


----------



## Jarnhamar

BadBird said:
			
		

> Here I am 12 years later and my feet are just fine.



You've been a private for 12 years?


----------



## X Royal

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> You've been a private for 12 years?


It's possible.
I knew one person who received her CD as a private.


----------



## medicineman

BadBird said:
			
		

> ... I remember him telling me I had "flat feet" and asking if I had any foot pain or any other foot issues. I told him that I have never had any issues with my feet (which was the truth), and he preceded to pretty much interrogate me about it. For some reason he couldn't believe that I could have flat feet and it not be a medical problem. Here I am 12 years later and my feet are just fine.



I've pretty much interrogated a few people doing recruit medicals...generally they were being a bit cagy/evasisve and trying to dodge direct questions.  Also, some people are knobs, so end up getting treated that way - doesn't mean that's what was going on with you, but people do sometimes feel like they're being investigated.  I guess in some respects, they are actually.

I was posted in Calgary with Mr Wilks and was on course the odd time with him - some of this still doesn't sound like him, but we don't always know people that well I guess.

MM


----------



## McG

This is finally getting to court.  Maj David Yurczyszyn pleads not guilty to sexual assault.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/maj-david-yurczyszyn-pleads-not-guilty-to-sexual-assault-1.2600789


----------



## smale436

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cpl-derrick-gallagher-of-petawawa-facing-8-sexual-assault-charges-1.2598303

I met this guy during basic training. Quiet and polite person. I was rather shocked to see this to be honest.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And, according to a report in the _National Post_, he's been found guilty.


----------



## Rigs

Yep. News release went out yesterday (too late for news cycle). Sentencing should be starting in a few mins.


----------



## PMedMoe

*Article Link*

A soldier based in Manitoba is facing charges of assault and sexual assault.

Master Warrant Officer Douglas Pettie, a vehicle technician at Canadian Forces Base Shilo near Brandon, Man., has been charged with one count of sexual assault and two counts of assault causing bodily harm.

Major Yves Desbiens with the Canadian Forces said the alleged incidents occurred between February 2011 and May 2013 in Moncton, N.B.

An investigation into the allegations began last May and resulted in charges being laid Wednesday.

Pettie, 49, also faces four counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline under the National Defence Act.

More at link

This link states that the victim was also a serving member: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/04/20140410-110638.html


----------



## Journeyman

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> This link states that the victim was also a serving member.....


What kind of service member?


----------



## PMedMoe

Journeyman said:
			
		

> What kind of service member?



Ooooh, you're going to hell for that one.   >


Seriously, the incident in question occurred in Moncton.


----------



## Journeyman

Ah.....I got as far as "Shilo" "sexual assault" "serving member"....... :dunno:  honest mistake.

     >


----------



## McG

Demoted to captain and placed on the sex offender registry.  An admin review is likely also ready to have a decision rendered.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/former-head-of-alberta-military-base-demoted-added-to-sex-offender-registry-1.1771889


----------



## Emilio

Update

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cpl-derrick-gallagher-faces-18-new-charges-in-sex-assault-probe-1.2613423 



> A member of the Canadian Armed Forces appeared in court on Thursday facing 18 new charges as part of an expanding sexual assault probe.
> 
> Cpl. Derrick Gallagher of Petawawa facing 8 sexual assault chargesCpl. Derrick Gallagher had been arrested March 31, and then charged with eight counts of sexual assault and two counts of voyeurism just days later in relation to alleged incidents dating back to 2007.
> 
> An Ontario Provincial Police investigation began March 29 after a woman complained to them, police said. That week, their evidence led them to eight alleged victims in the town of Petawawa, Ont.
> 
> On Thursday, Gallagher was charged with eight more counts of sexual assault, nine more counts of voyeurism and one count of assault.
> 
> He made a brief court appearance in Pembroke, Ont., via video from the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre and his case was adjourned until April 24. That's when he will once again appear via video.
> 
> The 31-year-old infantryman with the 1st Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment joined the military in December 2005, and served in Afghanistan from September 2008 to April 2009.​
> 
> All of the alleged incidents happened during his time with the military.
> 
> Opp said they know of 18 victims and are still trying to identify 50 other women they believe are victims.
> 
> They said those women, who may have been drugged and do not know whether or not they were assaulted, could be anywhere in the country.
> 
> Police said more women from both Ontario and Quebec came forward after the initial charges were announced, and they're asking anyone else with information to contact them at 613-735-0188.


----------



## pbi

CBC.ca is carrying a take-up of a piece by Macleans (haven't read it yet) which alleges that the extent of sexual assault in the CAF has reached "epidemic" proportions:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/maclean-s-alleges-disturbing-levels-of-sexual-assault-in-canadian-military-1.2621333

The CBC piece mentions exactly TWO cases: one in Wainwright (the CO) and one in Pet (Cpl Gallagher). How is this an "epidemic"?

Has anybody seen the Macleans piece yet?


----------



## Tibbson

It looks like MacLeans is set to release a cover story on the topic of sexual assaults in the CF.  From the tone of this teaser I'd guess they have concluded the issue has gotten no better over the years.  I havent seen what is coming out and I'm certainly not judging one way or the other.  I'm just letting others know so they can follow the story once its released. 

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/our-militarys-disgrace-a-preview-of-our-latest-cover-story/


----------



## Shamrock

http://www.680news.com/2014/04/24/macleans-exclusive-looks-at-sexual-assault-in-the-military/


----------



## Jungle

This extract caught my attention: 





> Every day, five individuals in the Canadian military community become victims of sexual assault.



Five a day, everyday ?? That's close to 1900 every year... I know this stuff happens, like it happens in society, but I seriously doubt it happens in those numbers.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Jungle said:
			
		

> This extract caught my attention:
> Five a day, everyday ?? That's close to 1900 every year... I know this stuff happens, like it happens in society, but I seriously doubt it happens in those numbers.



I was just about to quote the same comment.  5 a day sounds like total bullshit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

*Every day, five* individuals in the Canadian military community become victims of sexual assault, according to statistics obtained through Canada’s Access to Information Act.
The numbers show military police have received between 134 and 201 complaints of sexual assaults every year since 2000, which averages out to* 178 * per year.

Now, I'm no freakin' math genius......


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jungle said:
			
		

> This extract caught my attention:
> Five a day, everyday ?? That's close to 1900 every year... I know this stuff happens, like it happens in society, but I seriously doubt it happens in those numbers.



And that would be only what's been reported. I guess that, in total, everyone in the military would be assaulted within a ten year period using their figures :

I'm not trying to minimize or cast doubt on anyone that's come forward. I appreciate their bravery to end this type of crime.

However, you would have to rethink MacLeans motives for the article, if straight out of the gate they appear to be sensationalistic about it and inflate their numbers for shock value

That's just a gut feel though. I'll have to read the whole thing before I convince myself of their motives.


----------



## The_Falcon

pbi said:
			
		

> CBC.ca is carrying a take-up of a piece by Macleans (haven't read it yet) which alleges that the extent of sexual assault in the CAF has reached "epidemic" proportions:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/maclean-s-alleges-disturbing-levels-of-sexual-assault-in-canadian-military-1.2621333
> 
> The CBC piece mentions exactly TWO cases: one in Wainwright (the CO) and one in Pet (Cpl Gallagher). How is this an "epidemic"?
> 
> Has anybody seen the Macleans piece yet?



Perhaps now that the war is over, it will be easier to take digs at the CF?  This has certainly been a big issue in the US, perhaps inventing a crisis out of two incidents the CBC is trying to get more people to tune in and thereby recoup lost advertising dollars [/conspiracy]


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Perhaps now that the war is over, it will be easier to take digs at the CF?  This has certainly been a big issue in the US, perhaps inventing a crisis out of two incidents the CBC is trying to get more people to tune in and thereby recoup lost advertising dollars [/conspiracy]



CBC has always taken shots at the military and tends more often to denigrate us. They have never really been onside with us.

They only appear patriotic when it suits them, or it means more revenue. However, if they think the revenues will be higher for demonizing us than praising us, they'll send the pitchfork and torch crowd after us I a heartbeat. They're pretty good at lying until it becomes truth and stretching out perceived bad shit until no one knows what the original initiator was. Flogging a dead horse was perfected at the CBC.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The other thing is perception..............according to some people I probably "sexually assaulted" about 25 women while waiting for my Daughter at a Hamilton mall tonight. :


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> CBC has always taken shots at the military and tends more often to denigrate us. They have never really been onside with us.
> 
> They only appear patriotic when it suits them, or it means more revenue. However, if they think the revenues will be higher for demonizing us than praising us, they'll send the pitchfork and torch crowd after us I a heartbeat. They're pretty good at lying until it becomes truth and stretching out perceived bad crap until no one knows what the original initiator was. Flogging a dead horse was perfected at the CBC.



I feel the same way. It was all roses and champagne.....now it's a kick in the nether regions....some thanks eh?

The timing is somewhat suspect....three weeks or so until 9 May. Kinda takes the shine off the National Day of Honour.

While I detest sexual violence of any sort I am left  to wonder if anyone in Canada really "supports the troops".


----------



## Tibbson

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I was just about to quote the same comment.  5 a day sounds like total bullshit.



Well, you need to remember that sexual assault can encompass anything from what was called rape years ago to someone being gropped at a mess dinner.  Both incidents are crimes and both are important and troubling matters to the victims and deserve to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted but I think we can all agree there is a difference in severity.  Statistically however both are considered sexual assault ("any form of unwanted sexual contact" Sec 271 of the Criminal Code and Sec 272 or 273 if a weapon is involved or someone is disfigured) so depending how someone wanted to spin the stats.....

As others have pointed out though, sounds like its open season on the CF again.  When interviewed by CBC the author of the article claims 5 sexual assaults a day in the CF and then casually mentions that figure is a based on Stats Can trends or a "guesstimate".  The other CBC video clips show the loaded questions to CF brass by other reporters jumping into the feeding frenzy and it all takes off after that.


----------



## The_Falcon

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Well, you need to remember that sexual assault can encompass anything from what was called rape years ago to someone being gropped at a mess dinner.  Both incidents are crimes and both are important and troubling matters to the victims and deserve to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted but I think we can all agree there is a difference in severity.  Statistically however both are considered sexual assault ("any form of unwanted sexual contact" Sec 271 of the Criminal Code and Sec 272 or 273 if a weapon is involved or someone is disfigured) so depending how someone wanted to spin the stats.....
> 
> As others have pointed out though, sounds like its open season on the CF again.



While I don't disagree with you, even still the numbers are suspect.  I honestly believe this has more to do with the major problems that are occuring in the US military, which has torpedoed the careers of several high ranking members.  The war is done, the gloves are off and the CBC want to (attempt to) stick it to the Conservatives (for not giving them more money) by insuating they have a military that is run amok with sexual deviants, and they have shirked their responsibilty to deal with it.


----------



## dapaterson

CBC is reporting what is in l'Actualité, and soon to be in Macleans.  From what I understand, they looked at reported assaults, which average 178 per year.  Certain sources posit that only one in ten assaults is reported.  Therefore, they apply math: if 178 assaults represent one in ten, therefore there are 1780 per year, which comes out to just under five per day.


----------



## Tibbson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CBC is reporting what is in l'Actualité, and soon to be in Macleans.  From what I understand, they looked at reported assaults, which average 178 per year.  Certain sources posit that only one in ten assaults is reported.  Therefore, they apply math: if 178 assaults represent one in ten, therefore there are 1780 per year, which comes out to just under five per day.



I have no issue with the accuracy of the 178 since it is verifiable however the rest is conjecture being passed off as fact and it slants the entire article from there.


----------



## Armymedic

recceguy said:
			
		

> However, you would have to rethink MacLeans motives for the article, if straight out of the gate they appear to be sensationalistic about it and inflate their numbers for shock value



It would not be the first time a news source utilized shock value to ensure people would want to read their story.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Ottawa Citizen_ is reporting that the Chief of Defence Staff launches review after ‘disturbing’ sex assault allegations. The key to the story is, I think, in the last paragraph: "Sexual assaults in the armed forces have been a high-profile problem in the U.S. In December, President Barack Obama ordered U.S. military leaders to conduct a one-year review of efforts to eliminate sexual assaults in the military."

If there is a problem in the US then it stands to reason that there must be one here .... right?

The _Ottawa Citizen_ article also explains that _L’actualité_, the magazine actually breaking the story, multiplied the 178 annual average actual complaints by 10 because "experts agree that hundreds of other cases are ignored" and "given that fewer than one in 10 sexual assaults are disclosed to authorities, as estimated by Statistics Canada, that adds up to 1,780 incidents a year in the military, the article concludes, or five per day."


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CBC is reporting what is in l'Actualité, and soon to be in Macleans.  From what I understand, they looked at reported assaults, which average 178 per year.  Certain sources posit that only one in ten assaults is reported.  Therefore, they apply math: if 178 assaults represent one in ten, therefore there are 1780 per year, which comes out to just under five per day.


If that's the arithmetic, then the correct lead would have to be "Experts say there may be as many as five sexual assaults a day in the CAF".

Oh wait, not as sensational ....


----------



## pbi

Looking at the comments Mercier makes in the interview extracts, I have a feeling, like ER and others, that this is a conflation of what may be a small (but still serious) issue in the CAF with what is probably a larger (and certainly much noisier) problem in the US.

I'm not sure that it's fair to paint the CBC as "totally anti-military": there has been plenty of good reportage by the CBC of events in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I'll certainly grant that they have their strain of anti-militarists, but it's more likely, as some have suggested, that this is a way of embarassing the current govt which early on wrapped itself in the banner of pro-military sentiment. (We've discussed THAT elsewhere on this ste...)

Macleans can scarcely be called a "left-wing" or anti-military publication if you look objectively at what they've published over the years. Don't forget that it was Macleans who offended the Muslim community in this country with a depiction of Islamic culture a few years ago.

All of that aside, I am very, very skeptical of these figures, and of how they were arrived at. It will be interesting to see. If they are true, then the CAF has slipped, badly and has some housecleaning to do. It sounds like another leadership failure in the making.

If, on the other hand, these figures are BS extrapolations or "guesstimates", which I highly suspect, a false image of the CAF is going to emerge that may clash badly with attempts to maintain public support, including support for wounded veterans.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Has anyone seen the definition of sexual assault that they used for this?


----------



## Jarnhamar

I wonder if the stats of military police _ investigations _  into sexual assault take into account false allegations.


----------



## OldSolduer

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I wonder if the stats of military police _ investigations _  into sexual assault take into account false allegations.


I am not all that confident in anything the Military Police investigate. Sorry if I tick any MPs off here, but the quality of the investigations I've seen are....somewhat mediocre.


----------



## Nemo888

The MP investigations I have seen have not been ideal. Most have not had enough real crimes to investigate to have sufficient experience. Made worse by the fact that some in uniform still think such behavior is acceptable. The 5 a day undercuts the seriousness of actual rape though. Perhaps we should be a little more vocal with the assholes who talk about degrading and hurting women like it is a sport. Worth thinking about.


----------



## George Wallace

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The MP investigations I have seen have not been ideal. Most have not had enough real crimes to investigate to have sufficient experience. Made worse by the fact that some in uniform still think such behavior is acceptable. The 5 a day undercuts the seriousness of actual rape though. Perhaps we should be a little more vocal with the assholes who talk about degrading and hurting women like it is a sport. Worth thinking about.



FANTASTIC!

You now equate all of these incidents as "rape".  Unfortunately, Sexual Assault constitutes many lesser forms than just "rape".  Some can be as innocent as poor choice of words in a conversation.  Some may even be FALSE claims filed by one person in a vindictive manner against another person.  Nor are all these Sexual Assaults restricted to that being of men against women.  They could be just the opposite; women against men, or perhaps same sex.

Absolutely BRILLIANT post on your part.   :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Ottawa Citizen_ is reporting that the Chief of Defence Staff launches review after ‘disturbing’ sex assault allegations ....


It'll be interesting to see:
1)  what conclusions said review reaches;
2)  what will be shared with the public; 
3)  what the media take-away will be; and
4)  what the public take-away will be.
Think "inverse pyramid" re:  how much of the original makes it through to media consumers.


----------



## Lightguns

I think in the criminal code, sexual assault must involve some form of touching, and is divided into minor sexual assault (touching for a sexual purpose) and major sexual assault (an act of a sexual nature form which permission has not be attained, including penetration, an "attempt to penetrate" as well as anal and oral penetration).  Words spoken are harassment.  

That being said the bases are still very much a sexual hunting grounds for our younger members and alot of behavior is tolerated simply because no one complains and should not be tolerated.  We have a unique workplace in that much of our younger members hang out together in workplace supplied canteens and messes.  Lines are easily crossed and alcohol is flowing freely after duty hours.  Yes, I understand universities but they are dissimilar as the populations of male and female are roughly equal.


----------



## Tibbson

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I wonder if the stats of military police _ investigations _  into sexual assault take into account false allegations.



Good point.  The incident report is labelled"sexual assault" while the report status indicates if the incident could be substantiated or not or, if someone admits it as a false allegation.  On the surfase though the titles and offence types are all the same.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I await their study and report into the same issue at Canada's highest ranking universities.  Most reputable hospitals.  School boards from every province.

I don't think they'll stop just at the CAF because it's a good story and easy group to isolate.   ^-^


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I await their study and report into the same issue at Canada's highest ranking universities.  Most reputable hospitals.  School boards from every province.
> 
> I don't think they'll stop just at the CAF because it's a good story and easy group to isolate.   ^-^



Many of those that are educated at those universities are left wing in nature, and really don't like the idea of an armed force having to protect the nation. The media will probably not poke too far into any university.
It's a very difficult issue to deal with, as there will always be those who think "the military is hiding something" or "these Neanderthals must be reined in.. Knuckledraggers have no place in society" etc....


----------



## brihard

'Sexual assault' as a criminal charge encompasses everything from an unwanted grope, to full out forcible rape. There's no distinction between the two in the criminal code. 

'Good' crime data comes from two sources: The Uniform Crime Reports are police generated statistics of every reported criminal offence, whether it can be substantiated or not.  The other good source is victimization surveys compiled by Statistics Canada.

Unfortunately sex assault is simultaneously one of the most under reported AND one of the most falsely reported crimes out there. False reports may happen because a victim (usually female) is acting maliciously with a false allegation, or to 'cover' for (usually drunken) infidelity where they claim they were sexually assaulted in a sort of buyers remorse. Under reporting of sex assault generally comes form people thinking the police won't be able to do anything about it, or out of a desire not to invite disturbance into familial / intimate relationships. A person won't report being sexually assaulted by their spouse for fear of breaking the family up. A victim won't report being sexually assaulted because of fears of mockery or stigma. A victim who was sexually assaulted by a family member (often repeatedly over years) for fear of being disbelieved, or because 'you don't report family' or what have you.

Sex assault is found throughout society, in all institutions. I would hope that Macleans has gone to the effort to compare reported sex assault rates within the CF with reported sex assault rates not just int he population as a whole, but also corrected for demographic.

You get a bunch of people together, sexual assaults will happen, especially with alcohol (something we all know troops are fond of), and an alpha male mindset.


----------



## OldSolduer

Thanks Bri

This reminds me of a Sgt who had been tossed in civilian jail for sexual assault.


The story I got from him, which I believe to be true, is that he was having some fun with another guys wife and they got caught. Easier to cry rape I guess.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brihard said:
			
		

> I would hope that Macleans has gone to the effort to compare reported sex assault rates within the CF with reported sex assault rates not just int he population as a whole, but also corrected for demographic.



*hope*



> You get a bunch of people together, sexual assaults will happen, especially with alcohol (something we all know troops are fond of), and an alpha male mindset.



Once upon a time, I worked as a bouncer.  The worst 2 kinds of offenders I saw lots of were (1) young male university students and (2) young male hockey players.  I saw more 'misconduct' to ladies from those 2 groups the few years (4-5) I was a bouncer than my entire time (just shy of 25 years) in the CF around army, navy and air force units.

But, it isn't like stuff is happening that is disturbing at, say, universities for example, right? Say, like chants and stuff!!   Certainly not at places like SMU in Halifax!  Oh...wait.  I don't think I've seen CAF members doing chants like this at unit functions.


----------



## zulu95

You're absolute right Bri.

There was a case in my family where my aunt was repeatedly raped at night by her father and no one knew about it until over a year after he died because she was afraid of the stigma and damage to the family that might have been caused by telling any one. 
On the other hand I went to school with a girl who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by a teacher until the investigation showed that he had a rock solid alibi so she confessed to making it up to get him fired.


----------



## brihard

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Thanks Bri
> 
> This reminds me of a Sgt who had been tossed in civilian jail for sexual assault.
> 
> 
> The story I got from him, which I believe to be true, is that he was having some fun with another guys wife and they got caught. Easier to cry rape I guess.....



Yup. The corollary to that being that police forces used to be far too quick to call 'bull****' on sexual assault allegations, and that in reponse the pendulum swung all the way the other way. 

Sex assault investigations are frustrating, lengthy, and often fruitless. Cops hate dealing with them for the most part. Between the amount of BS beind spewed, the scummy nature of a lot of the people you deal with, and the tendency for victims to suddenly recant halfway through an investigation (even when you're damned sure that what they allege did happen), it sucks for cops to work on. And so police force policies often hedge against this by mandating that every allegation be taken fully seriously and investigated as such. So that means that in a BS report, such as the 'oops, I cheated. Rape!' that happens somewhat frequently, people whoa re guilty of nothing more than being a cuckold end up charged. Even is charges are later stayed by the crown (which is NOT the same as them being dismissed), that person remains tainted by the allegation.

But perplexingly, we need to get more actual victims to step forward and say 'yeah, this happened'. I'm dealing right now with a friend who's been through years of it and isn't willing to report things to police. It friggin' sucks.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *hope*
> 
> Once upon a time, I worked as a bouncer.  The worst 2 kinds of offenders I saw lots of were (1) young male university students and (2) young male hockey players.  I saw more 'misconduct' to ladies from those 2 groups the few years (4-5) I was a bouncer than my entire time (just shy of 25 years) in the CF around army, navy and air force units.
> 
> But, it isn't like stuff is happening that is disturbing at, say, universities for example, right? Say, like chants and stuff!!   Certainly not at places like SMU in Halifax!  Oh...wait.  I don't think I've seen CAF members doing chants like this at unit functions.



Yup, I hear ya...


----------



## PMedMoe

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I await their study and report into the same issue at Canada's highest ranking universities.  Most reputable hospitals.  School boards from every province.
> 
> I don't think they'll stop just at the CAF because it's a good story and easy group to isolate.   ^-^



Don't forget the RCMP....


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *hope*
> 
> Once upon a time, I worked as a bouncer.  The worst 2 kinds of offenders I saw lots of were (1) young male university students and (2) young male hockey players.



One of our players in Winnipeg who plays at a high level was scratched for several games for an undisclosed injury. The story is that he was trying  to pick up "chicks" at the bar and one of the boyfriends of a young lady objects to this. When the hockey player said "do you know who I am?" (Typical response from a spoiled brat pro athlete) the response was "yeah I do" and it was followed by a few lefts and rights....hence his absence from the line up.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

According the CCC, there are four levels of sexual assault:



> Sexual assault level 1 (s.271): An assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. Level 1 involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim.
> Sexual assault level 2 (s.272): Sexual assault with a weapon, threats, or causing bodily harm.
> Aggravated sexual assault (level 3): Sexual assault that results in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim.
> Other sexual offences: A group of offences that are meant to primarily address incidents of sexual abuse directed at children. The Criminal Code offences included in this category are: Sexual interference (s.151), Invitation to sexual touching (s.152), Sexual exploitation (s.153), Incest (s.155), Anal intercourse (s.159), and Bestiality (s.160).
> 
> Two related offences, not included under the definition of sexual offences in this report, are indecent acts (s.173) and corrupting morals (s.163).



Source:_  Stats Canada: Sexual Assault in Canada_

From the Highlights section of same report: _The majority of sexual offences in Canada are of a less severe nature. Victimization data indicate that most sexual assaults involved unwanted sexual touching (81%) rather than more severe sexual attacks (19%). Among the incidents that came to the attention of police in 2007, the large majority (86%) were level 1, the least serious form of sexual assault._

- _When asked why they did not tell the police about the sexual assault, a majority of victims (58%) said that they did not report the incident because it was not important enough._


----------



## Tibbson

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> From the Highlights section of same report: _The majority of sexual offences in Canada are of a less severe nature. Victimization data indicate that most sexual assaults involved unwanted sexual touching (81%) rather than more severe sexual attacks (19%). Among the incidents that came to the attention of police in 2007, the large majority (86%) were level 1, the least serious form of sexual assault._
> 
> - _When asked why they did not tell the police about the sexual assault, a majority of victims (58%) said that they did not report the incident because it was not important enough._



Kinda hard to make a sensational headline and sell copies out of that so I can see why they wrote what they did.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CBC is reporting what is in l'Actualité, and soon to be in Macleans.  From what I understand, they looked at reported assaults, which average 178 per year.  Certain sources posit that only one in ten assaults is reported.  Therefore, they apply math: if 178 assaults represent one in ten, therefore there are 1780 per year, which comes out to just under five per day.


Of course, it is known that the CAF is not a statistical microcosm of the nation.  As a population, the CAF shows a number of statistically significant deviations from Canadians as a whole.  One cannot assume the military follows an _estimated_ Canadian average that only 1 in 10 sexual assaults are reported.  It would be irresponsible to present this extrapolation with any degree of certainty.  

Personally, I would like to think we have a much higher rate of reporting.  There is a very effective system to educate every CAF member about the military's disdain for sexual misconduct and abuses of any sort.  Victims and leaders everywhere should know that such behavior will not be tolerated and offenders are to be held to account.  I would hope we have created an environment where victims know and feel that they are safe coming forward.

That being said, I don't doubt that there are assaults that go unreported.  I would be disappointed but not surprised to learn that only 1 in 5 are reported within the military.  Speculating is no more helpful than extrapolating from a biased sample.  If there is not already statistical data from which to determine the military rate of reporting sexual assault (and I seem to recall questions that would lead to such data on past CAF health or satisfaction surveys), then maybe the CAF needs to get this information in its next the survey/census.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The three basic problems with putting up numbers to blow up the skirts of the easily shocked in order to sell paper have been hit above, but to summarize:
1) What fits the definition (should be well-defined)
2) What are the proportions of true and false allegations in the mix (fuzzy)
3) Extent to which extrapolations for some other groups can be fitted to CF (wild-ass guess)

If people are serious about addressing the problem of sexual assault, every federal, provincial, and municipal agency should be subject to whatever investigative and corrective measures are deemed appropriate for the CF.  The CF doesn't need to be the poster boy.


----------



## MilEME09

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The three basic problems with putting up numbers to blow up the skirts of the easily shocked in order to sell paper have been hit above, but to summarize:
> 1) What fits the definition (should be well-defined)
> 2) What are the proportions of true and false allegations in the mix (fuzzy)
> 3) Extent to which extrapolations for some other groups can be fitted to CF (wild-*** guess)
> 
> If people are serious about addressing the problem of sexual assault, every federal, provincial, and municipal agency should be subject to whatever investigative and corrective measures are deemed appropriate for the CF.  The CF doesn't need to be the poster boy.



One thing that was brought up by Global is that this isn't just Soldier on soldier complaints but also Civilian on soldier complaints that happen on DND property.


----------



## pontcanna

I imagine many here have seen this rather harrowing documentary about the issue in the US forces?

http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Invisible_War/70229264?sod=search-autocomplete

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_invisible_war/


----------



## Brad Sallows

I imagine not.  "Documentary", as a film category, ceased to have any meaning a few years back.


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I imagine not.  "Documentary", as a film category, ceased to have any meaning a few years back.



Now it's a witch hunt.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Here's the link to stats can; http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/part-partie1-eng.htm#h2_9

They have it at 68 per 100k for women and 6 per 100k for men.  So either we have higher reporting or several times higher incidence then the general population, or a combination of the two.

Hard to say.  Also impossible to be objective about, but food for thought anyway.  Don't suspect we're any worse then the general population, but worth verifying.

Too bad it is coming from sensationalist journalism though; any good finding will just not get reported.


----------



## ModlrMike

It is important to realize that journalists require no maths nor science courses in pursuit of their degree, unlike science students who are required to take arts courses. Therefore the ability of a journalist to understand and interpret population statistics should be suspect at best.


----------



## pontcanna

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Now it's a witch hunt.


So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?


----------



## OldSolduer

pontcanna said:
			
		

> So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?



Excuse me?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

pontcanna said:
			
		

> So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?



It is about the US Forces.  And zero idea on credibility of the makers.

Pass.


----------



## Tibbson

I'm surprised this story hasnt gotten the traction I feared it would or perhaos its too soon to tell.  The article itself, as others have noted, it based on faulty assumpions, misleading statistics and, in my opinion,  biased reporting.  We can all agree I'm sure that one SA is one too many but its certainly not the epidemic he makes it out to be.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?

Don't want to waste the time.  I have a long reading and viewing list, and the modern propaganda that falls into the category of "film, documentary" is a waste of any thinking person's time.  I understand that there is bad behaviour among soldiers.  I also understand that civilians have been needlessly and incorrectly sensationalizing every twitch among soldiers since cuneiform was invented.


----------



## FJAG

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> According the CCC, there are four levels of sexual assault:



I think that you are misinterpreting what Brihard was saying and perhaps also reading too much into the Stats Canada item.

Brihard is quite correct when he says that sexual assault includes everything from non consensual groping of a sexual nature to full penetration intercourse.  He was subtly pointing out that Lightguns was wrong when he broke sexual assault into two categories - minor (groping etc) and major (full penetration). The offence described in s 271 in fact covers both situations and more.

What ss 272 and 273 do is create more serious offences where the sexual assault itself is committed under aggravating circumstances (i.e. a weapon is involved, maiming is involved etc). This is why each of these sections contains the phrase "in committing a sexual assault." 

The Stats Canada item reflects administrative categorization levels for statistically purposes. The grab bag of "other sexual offences" in the Stats Canada item do not constitute a "fourth level of sexual assault" but is in fact a disparate variety of other categories or types of sexual offences.

I know its a fine point and I fault the Stats Canada item which is somewhat loose in its language. "Level" is a poor word to use and it doesn't appear in the legislation. I'm also not very fond of the phrase "Level 1 involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim." I defie anyone to use this phrase to the victim of sexual assault. More importantly its a wrong statement. For example, a person may be raped at gunpoint and yet have suffered "no injuries" - its clearly a s 272 offence yet it also meets the Stats Canada Level 1 definition. What really creates a s 271 offence is the absence of any of the circumstances that are required to substantiate a charge of sexual assault under s 272 or s 273.

On the subject matter of this thread in general I just have one comment: writers (and their editors) write whatever they want to write. There's an axe to grind here and there is no news value in a story with the headline "Sexual Assaults rates in the CF are the same as in Canadian society as a whole." I expect neither realistic nor intelligible statistics nor fair reporting to come out of this. Is there more we should do to reduce incidents of sexual assault in the CF? You betcha. Do we, as a group, deserve to be pilloried or hung out to dry? No freakin' way. But we will be.

:cheers:


----------



## Scott

pontcanna said:
			
		

> So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?



Don't troll.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks, FJAG, for that very useful explanation.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the CDS on the series ....


> Members of the Canadian Armed Forces Team,
> 
> By now, many of you will have read or heard about articles in 'Maclean's' and 'L'actualité' regarding allegations of sexual misconduct within the CAF. I'm certain you were as disturbed as I was at the characterization of the chain of command's role in the handling of allegations laid out in these articles. With this note I wish to make several things clear.
> 
> First, there can be no ambiguity regarding the characterization of sexual assault as a crime and a breach of the Code of Service Discipline, and I fully expect the chain of command to meet their obligations, legal and ethical, in the careful management of complaints of misconduct. This includes ensuring that complainants are provided appropriate support. It must be clear to everyone within the CAF that complainants are free to report any misconduct, and that they will be supported by their chain of command without fear of reprisal.
> 
> Next, as I said in my public statement, I do not accept from any quarter that this type of behaviour is part of our military culture. As uniformed members representing Canadian society, we must maintain the highest ethical and professional standards in all areas of our conduct. The onus is on all levels within the chain of command to ensure that we protect the dignity and safety of our entire Defence Team.
> 
> Finally, we have commenced a review of our policies and procedures to better ensure that we have everything in place to foster a healthy and safe workplace for all members, to reinforce the unfettered reporting of any incidents of misconduct, including sexual misconduct.
> 
> There is no doubt where our duty lies and I trust in all of you to ensure that we nurture a safe and secure workplace now and into the future. This is a leadership issue and I expect everyone to do their part in this, from the CDS to our newest recruits.


.... with a bit more from the CDS and the Minister:


> _*Statement by General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff*_
> 
> Sexual assault is a crime. It is an abhorrent and corrosive act that goes against the entirety of our military ethos. I do not accept from any quarter that this is merely a part of military culture; it is not. Sexual misconduct of any kind is not and will not be tolerated within the CAF, and this is a message that I reinforce throughout the chain of command. We will pursue any and all allegations of sexual misconduct and we will protect complainants from reprisals.
> 
> As military leaders it is our duty to set a standard of respect in the workplace, to nurture that culture with education and training, and to ensure mutual respect through the clear and unambiguous enforcement of the policies and rules that guard the workplace.
> 
> In view of recent surveys which have indicated positive trends in workplace culture, the article published today is disturbing. I have directed an immediate internal review of our workplace programmes and policies, and leadership engagement. Further to this, I will consider options for external review.
> 
> _*Statement by The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of National Defence*_
> 
> I was deeply angered to learn of these alleged sexual assaults in the military.
> 
> Since 2006, our Government has continuously fought on behalf of victims and enhanced the laws in this country to combat sexual assault.
> 
> Sexual misconduct of all kinds will not be tolerated within the Canadian Armed Forces and I have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to get to the bottom of these serious matters.


----------



## Privateer

Per CBC news:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ex-navy-medic-james-wilks-sentenced-to-30-months-for-bogus-breast-exams-1.2624623



> Ex-navy medic James Wilks sentenced to 30 months for bogus breast exams
> 
> 
> A military court has sentenced a retired navy medical technician to 30 months in prison.
> 
> Retired Petty Officer 2nd Class James Wilks was found guilty in November of 10 counts of sexual assault and 15 counts of breach of trust.
> 
> The court heard evidence that Wilks conducted unnecessary breast exams on women while conducting routine physicals.
> 
> The incidents happened between 2003 and 2009, while Wilks was stationed in Thunder Bay and London, Ont.
> 
> Wilks used the medical exams to see and touch the women's breasts, and let them think it was part of the examination, which was "totally dishonest," D'Auteuil said when delivering his verdict in November.
> 
> "The court found no reason to disbelieve any of these women."
> 
> There is a publication ban on the identities of the women.
> 
> In all, Wilks faced 16 charges of breach of trust and 10 sex assault counts. He was acquitted of a lone breach of trust charge.


----------



## RCDtpr

30 months for 10 sexual assault convictions.

The CF keeps touting how they take this stuff seriously....clearly. 

Ridiculous sentence.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

My neighbour in the PMQ's was shot twice by another member. Shooter got 6 yrs. for what seems to me to have been attempted murder.


----------



## brihard

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> 30 months for 10 sexual assault convictions.
> 
> The CF keeps touting how they take this stuff seriously....clearly.
> 
> Ridiculous sentence.



Not surprising, and about par for the course for something of this nature. There's nothing uniquely 'CF' about this sentence. I expect the court will also have considered his total loss of a the remainder of a good lifelong career as a mitigating factor on the sentencing. He's sentenced to 30 months in jail (of which he'll serve maybe 20), but he's hooped for life. The pension implications alone are tremendous.


----------



## Occam

Brihard said:
			
		

> The pension implications alone are tremendous.



What pension implications?  He'll still get his pension, unless something changed recently.


----------



## brihard

Occam said:
			
		

> What pension implications?  He'll still get his pension, unless something changed recently.



He was at 26 years service at 51 years old when he was first convicted. Up to another 9 years accrual, and whatever promotions he might have seen in that time. Not a small deal by any means.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Shooter got 6 yrs. for what seems to me to have been attempted murder.



Did he have to retake his PWT3 at least?


----------



## The Bread Guy

An update:


> A former Canadian Forces medical technician who was sentenced to 30 months in jail after being convicted of sexual assault and breach of trust will remain free while he appeals the verdict in his case.
> 
> Retired petty officer second class James Wilks was found guilty of 10 counts of sexual assault and 15 counts of breach of trust.
> 
> (....)
> 
> A military judge (yesterday) sentenced Wilks to 30 months in jail.
> 
> Wilks immediately appealed the verdict.
> 
> The judge this afternoon ruled Wilks could be released until his appeal is heard — a process that could take months.
> 
> The judge imposed a set of conditions, including that Wilks must keep the peace and surrender his passport.


----------



## RCDtpr

Brihard said:
			
		

> Not surprising, and about par for the course for something of this nature. There's nothing uniquely 'CF' about this sentence. I expect the court will also have considered his total loss of a the remainder of a good lifelong career as a mitigating factor on the sentencing. He's sentenced to 30 months in jail (of which he'll serve maybe 20), but he's hooped for life. The pension implications alone are tremendous.



I agree and disagree.  Civvie side he would probably get a similar sentence, however he would have also had quite a bit of pre trial (in my experience at least).  Unless I missed it somewhere it doesn't seem like he spent anything more than a bail hearing in pre trial custody....and even then I didn't notice that, I'm just assuming.

Couple with the fact you see that Toronto doctor recently get 10 for groping 21 patients.  21/2 = 10.5.  So that doc got exactly double the sex assault convictions this guy did.

10 years = 120 months.  So this medic gets not even half the sentence.  I know the Toronto case the patients were sedated, however in this case it wasn't much different as the guy used the fact he knew the women wanted the job to keep them from defending themselves and both he and the doctor were in a position of trust.

I stand by my opinion that the CF dropped the ball hard on this one.....especially in light of that article in macleans.


----------



## Gramps

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> I agree and disagree.  Civvie side he would probably get a similar sentence, however he would have also had quite a bit of pre trial (in my experience at least).  Unless I missed it somewhere it doesn't seem like he spent anything more than a bail hearing in pre trial custody....and even then I didn't notice that, I'm just assuming.
> 
> Couple with the fact you see that Toronto doctor recently get 10 for groping 21 patients.  21/2 = 10.5.  So that doc got exactly double the sex assault convictions this guy did.
> 
> 10 years = 120 months.  So this medic gets not even half the sentence.  I know the Toronto case the patients were sedated, however in this case it wasn't much different as the guy used the fact he knew the women wanted the job to keep them from defending themselves and both he and the doctor were in a position of trust.
> 
> I stand by my opinion that the CF dropped the ball hard on this one.....especially in light of that article in macleans.



That Toronto Doctor did a hell of a lot more than just simply grope patients.


----------



## OldSolduer

Gramps said:
			
		

> That Toronto Doctor did a hell of a lot more than just simply grope patients.



Plus they were sedated when he did what he did. 

The doctor not going to have a good time in jail.......neither is the medic.


----------



## smale436

35 charges so far.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cpl-derrick-gallagher-faces-7-new-charges-in-sex-assault-probe-1.2643976


----------



## McG

The newest statistics in this debate are now out.  Still disappointing, but believable (unlike the articles from April).



> 1 in 13 female Canadian soldiers sexually assaulted, but the number may be higher
> Emily Chan and Jordan Chittley
> CTVNews.ca
> 15 Aug 2014
> 
> Statistics Canada released a survey Friday indicating one in 13 female full-time members of the Canadian Forces had been sexually assaulted in connection with their service, but one expert said the numbers should be much higher.
> 
> Of the women surveyed, 7.6 per cent of women reported experiencing "sexual assault while deployed on CF operation or in CF workplace or by CF member or civilian DND employee."
> 
> However, 15.6 per cent of women surveyed reported experiencing "sexual assault or unwanted sexual touching while deployed on CF operation or in CF workplace or by CF member or civilian DND employee."
> 
> University of Ottawa Phd candidate Ashley Bickerton said while those statistics are troubling, she believes the actual numbers are far higher.
> 
> "When we speak about sexual assault in the military we need to be focussing in on one in six rather than one in 13," Bickerton told CTV News Channel on Friday. "We need to be asking more questions related to systemic sexual harassment" in the military, she said.
> 
> Bickerton said the reason why she believes it is actually much higher is because the definitions are outdated.
> 
> Bickerton said the two definitions Statistics Canada used for the survey are actually one in the same. Statistics Canada said they used those definitions because it coincided with past definitions so they would be able to make accurate comparisons.
> 
> "That's fair, but I think that things have changed in recent years," Bickerton said. "Our understanding of sexual assault has certainly been made much more contemporary. Our understanding is much more broad than it has been in the past."
> 
> Statistics Canada surveyed 6,700 full-time service members between April and August of 2013. It would not include anyone who was sexually assaulted and left the military or reserves forces. The survey was part of the greater Canadian Forces Mental Health Survey, which also looked at mental health and alcohol use.
> 
> Regardless of the numbers in this survey, Bickerton said this is a longstanding problem that needs to be addressed.
> 
> A retired judge is currently in the process of putting together an external review into sexual assault policy and procedures, training and culture in the Canadian Armed Forces. The results are expected next spring.


----------



## GAP

I know there is a thread on it, but couldn't find it....please move this if you find the proper thread....

Canadian soldier acquitted on charge of sexually assaulting female subordinate
By: Martin Ouellet, The Canadian Press 08/22/2014
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/canadian-soldier-acquitted-on-charge-of-sexually-assaulting-female-subordinate-272295001.html

QUEBEC - A Canadian Forces warrant officer threw himself into his lawyer's arms and his friends let out whoops of joy as he was acquitted Friday on a charge of sexually assaulting a female subordinate.

Andre Gagnon, 48, was on trial for the alleged sexual assault of then-corporal Stephanie Raymond in December 2011 at an armoury near Quebec City.

His court martial was overseen by a colonel in front of a panel of five male soldiers who reached the verdict.

Gagnon's lawyers said the sex was consensual, while the Crown argued that he used his superior rank to coerce Raymond, 30, into carnal acts.

One of Raymond's lawyers, Lt.-Col. Marylene Trudel, accused Gagnon during the court martial of using her client as an "open bar'' for his sexual gratification.

Gagnon faced one count under Sec. 130 of the National Defence Act as well as the Criminal Code section corresponding to sexual assault.

Raymond, who served under Gagnon, testified that he made advances, engaged in sexual touching and attempted to get oral sex after a holiday party.

Raymond, who was not present for the verdict, said she initially went along with his actions because she feared later reprisals.

The panel did not give reasons for its verdict, but Maj. Philippe-Luc Boutin, who defended Gagnon, said his client testified in a very clear and precise manner.

"He didn't try to hide or diminish his own involvement in the sexual exchange that was carried out," Boutin said.

"At the end of the day, I don't think Ms. Raymond had the same approach. She was very evasive on many issues . . . so the jury, I think, had serious doubts about the truthfulness of her story."

Raymond's lawyers said they will review the evidence and decide whether to appeal the verdict within 30 days.
more on link

_- mod edit of thread title to better reflect more recent developments -_


----------



## Rocky Mountains

Consent should be immaterial.  Sex with a subordinate should be cause for dismissal.  End of story.  How can consent ever be assumed?  I think the Yanks do it that way.


----------



## FJAG

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Consent should be immaterial.  Sex with a subordinate should be cause for dismissal.  End of story.  How can consent ever be assumed?  I think the Yanks do it that way.



The sole charge was s130NDA(ie s 271CCC) Sexual Assault. Consent is very material to this charge. The fact that the complainant was a subordinate would be solely on the question as to whether or not the consent was real or coerced. A not guilty finding leads to the conclusion that the panel had a reasonable doubt as to whether the consent was involuntary notwithstanding the rank issue.

Whether or not the sex with a subordinate issue is grounds for administrative action or whether it should be the basis of some other charge such as under 129 (Conduct to the prejudice ...) is a separate matter. 

The question of consent in a sexual assault case is always a difficult one to deal with. That doesn't mean that one should have a presumption against consent that the accused must disprove. The legal standard in both Canada and the US is that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The crown has the onus of proving all of the essential elements of the offence. A presumption of no consent in every case where there is a disparity of power would turn our legal standards on its head.

Having said that, in any case where consent is an issue, factual evidence of a disparity of power is certainly taken into account by the trier of fact (judge alone or jury) to determine as to whether or not the consent was coerced.

 :cheers:


----------



## MSEng314

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Consent should be immaterial.  Sex with a subordinate should be cause for dismissal.  End of story.  How can consent ever be assumed?  I think the Yanks do it that way.



So we should prohibit any relationship between serving members if they are of different rank? We would have to dismiss so many people that we may as well disband the military... Clearly you haven't thought this through.


----------



## Dissident

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Consent should be immaterial.  Sex with a subordinate should be cause for dismissal.  End of story.  How can consent ever be assumed?



Yeah, no.

I've seen many relationships between members of different ranks, some in supervisory roles, including my marriage. My wife started out as my section I/C and as I like to joke: I slept my way to the top!. Kidding aside, as long as the relationship doesn't interfere with operations, it shouldn't be a problem.

I do draw the line at relationships between instructors/staff with students. That's a whole other dynamic at play.


----------



## Old EO Tech

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Yeah, no.
> 
> I've seen many relationships between members of different ranks, some in supervisory roles, including my marriage. My wife started out as my section I/C and as I like to joke: I slept my way to the top!. Kidding aside, as long as the relationship doesn't interfere with operations, it shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> I do draw the line at relationships between instructors/staff with students. That's a whole other dynamic at play.



Most units I have served with have fraternization policies against relationships between supervisors and direct subordinates(ie you are writing or influencing a PDR/PER) at the very least.  CF Schools for certain have policies against student/instructor frat.  So yes theoretically the accused could still face CSD charges if his unit has such a policy and the Cpl was under his supervision.


----------



## Dissident

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Most units I have served with have fraternization policies against relationships between supervisors and direct subordinates(ie you are writing or influencing a PDR/PER) at the very least.  CF Schools for certain have policies against student/instructor frat.  So yes theoretically the accused could still face CSD charges if his unit has such a policy and the Cpl was under his supervision.



In the crudest way: People will bang. Take like minded people, put them together and relationships are bound to happen. Are we to "fire" everyone who gets in a relationship outside of their rank in the military? What happens if one of them gets promoted?

That said I should probably expand on my situation, for clarity: At the begining of the relationship a few people knew, peers and subordinates mostly, no one had any issues. As the relationship grew, successive layers of leadership were involved. It didn't take too long for us to approach the Pl WO to lay it all out. We had already had been seperated into different sections during regular re-org, so from this point on we have been kept from being in the same CoC.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Canadian soldier _*acquitted*_ on charge of sexually assaulting female subordinate

As it says 'acquitted' and by a jury of his peers.

He should now be allowed to get on with his life, without the armchair quarterbacks coming out and trying to parse the decision of the Courts Martial.


----------



## Old EO Tech

NinerSix said:
			
		

> In the crudest way: People will bang. Take like minded people, put them together and relationships are bound to happen. Are we to "fire" everyone who gets in a relationship outside of their rank in the military? What happens if one of them gets promoted?
> 
> That said I should probably expand on my situation, for clarity: At the begining of the relationship a few people knew, peers and subordinates mostly, no one had any issues. As the relationship grew, successive layers of leadership were involved. It didn't take too long for us to approach the Pl WO to lay it all out. We had already had been seperated into different sections during regular re-org, so from this point on we have been kept from being in the same CoC.



Yes people do get into relationships, but the CO also needs his/her unit to operate effectively, and maybe in yours and others situations your relationship doesn't effect morale, but the potential is always their, so yes as in your situation people simply need to be moved to ensure that one partner is not any were near supervising the other.  There are lots of service couples and in most cases they are not even in the same unit.  As long as you come forward and advise the CoC that you are in a relationship with someone in your direct CoC, you are fine.  It's when you don't do that that you can be held accountable for violating the frat policy, which is an order from the CO.


----------



## opcougar

There is still that saying though..."Don't crap where you eat". Personally, that CADPAT is a turn off for me on the opposite sex. Yes I have seen many in civvies and said to myself, I wouldn't mind banging that, but then you see them in CADPAT again, and deflates those thoughts.


----------



## Brasidas

opcougar said:
			
		

> There is still that saying though..."Don't crap where you eat". Personally, that CADPAT is a turn off for me on the opposite sex. Yes I have seen many in civvies and said to myself, I wouldn't mind banging that, but then you see them in CADPAT again, and deflates those thoughts.



Living in barracks amongst coursemates for several months (with less than 40 hours a week having any responsibility) and just watching the soap opera was plenty for me. 

Maybe watching or being a part of the kind of sh!+storms that can happen on a slack 3's (and having to live with them for another few months should be a part of SHARP training.

I mean no disrespect to the parties involved in this case. I understand that both clearly inappropriate relationships and good relationships happen in the CF, but early exposure to severe trainwrecks make pretty good object lessons.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Coming up next - an appeal by the prosecution:


> On 17 September 2014, a notice of appeal was filed in the case of R vs Warrant Officer JGA Gagnon concerning the not-guilty verdict handed down on 22 August 2014 by the General Court Martial. This General Court Martial had been convened in order to try WO Gagnon on the charge of sexual assault filed under Section 130 of the National Defence Act, in violation of Section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The prosecution argues in its notice of appeal that the military judge had erred in submitting the defence of “honest but mistaken belief in consent” for decision by the Committee. The notice of appeal was filed with the Court Martial Appeal Court, as the civil court has jurisdiction to hear appeals of court martial decisions ....


----------



## McG

Interesting development in this story.  It appears to be a FA decision on a grievance.  Hopefully some administrative house-cleaning and disciplinary stuff takes place in the unit that had her punted.



> *Stéphanie Raymond wins step in military sexual assault case*
> Tom Lawson, Canadian Armed Forces Chief of Defence Staff, says Raymond firing based on fradulent documents
> CBC NEWS
> 20 Dec 2014
> 
> A former military corporal who said she faced reprisals after accusing a superior of sexual assault feels vindicated after the Canadian Armed Forces extended an apology and reparations to her.
> 
> Stéphanie Raymond said the outcome will have positive repercussions, particularly for women as well as for some men serving in the Canadian military.
> 
> In 2012, Raymond accused Warrant Officer André Gagnon of sexually assaulting her in 2011. Gagnon was acquitted by a military jury last August.
> 
> Raymond waived her right to anonymity in the court proceedings.
> 
> Despite the acquittal, Raymond continued her fight against the military for retaliation she said she faced following the complaint until she was fired at the end of 2013.
> 
> “It’s been a hard road. It’s a path a lot of people abandon along the way. I decided not to abandon it, to the detriment of my career,” Raymond said.
> 
> In a 21-page letter sent to Raymond on Dec. 18, the CAF’s Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson admitted Raymond had been treated badly by higher-ranking officer in her regiment. The chief of staff also wrote that Raymond had been fired based on information found in fraudulent documents.
> 
> Lawson said the documents used to dishonourably discharge Raymond were not in line with military firing procedures.
> 
> Raymond asked for $85,000 in moral and punitive damages for her ordeal. Lawson said he agreed with her request but lacked the authority to grant it, therefore he would transfer this request to the director of claims and civil litigation.
> 
> Her lawyer, Michel Drapeau, said he'd never seen such a strong criticism of the military chain of command by a Chief of Defence Staff.
> 
> Raymond said she was very satisfied with the response from the chief of staff. Even so, she rejected the offer to have her job and rank back, saying she feared for her psychological and physical well-being if she were to reintegrate into the Canadian military.
> 
> She said she would never be able to turn the page if she went back. She is now in university, studying administration.
> 
> This is the closure of just one of the chapters in Raymond’s fight. Her appeal is scheduled to be heard by a military court in 2016.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/st%C3%A9phanie-raymond-wins-step-in-military-sexual-assault-case-1.2880415


----------



## Eye In The Sky

For the record, the CDS will never apologize in a decision as FA.


----------



## McG

MCG said:
			
		

> Hopefully some administrative house-cleaning and disciplinary stuff takes place in the unit that had her punted.


Looks like the Army Commander is getting this ball rolling.



> Military Sex Assault
> The Canadian Press - Broadcast wire
> 29 Jan 2015
> 
> OTTAWA - The country's top military commander has ordered an investigation into how a soldier was treated by the army after she complained of being sexually assaulted by a superior officer.
> 
> Gen. Tom Lawson, the chief of defence staff, ordered the board of inquiry into the case of former master corporal Stephanie Raymond on Wednesday, one day after she was given a post-release promotion, a decoration and a certificate of service.
> 
> The commander of the army, Lt.-Gen. Marquis Haines, announced the inquiry in a statement, saying the technical investigation will look at how she was treated from the time she filed her initial harassment complaint until her release in December 2013.
> 
> The statement said "irregularities in administrative procedures'' prompted the investigation, but the military did not explain what that means.
> 
> Raymond's case was featured on the covers of Maclean's and L'actualite magazines last year in articles that claimed sexual assaults had reached epidemic levels in the military.
> 
> She was described in the reports as a model soldier who suddenly became an "administrative burden'' when she reported the alleged assault in 2011 to military authorities.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> Looks like the Army Commander is getting this ball rolling.


A bit more from the Army Commander's statement:


> “Following direction from General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, to conduct an administrative investigation into irregularities in administrative procedures concerning Master Corporal (Ret’d) Raymond’s file, I am convening a military Board of Inquiry (BOI) to be led by Col D.A. MacIsaac as the president.
> 
> “The Board of Inquiry will look into irregularities raised by the CDS in his decision on the grievances presented by MCpl (Ret’d) Raymond regarding the way she was treated from the time she filed her initial harassment complaint until her release in December 2013. The aim of the BOI is to advise me on the actions and decisions taken in this specific case and to present recommendations that can improve our administrative procedures going forward.
> 
> “Every member of our Army family needs to feel safe, supported and free to bring issues to the attention of the Army leadership without fear of retaliation by his or her chain of command. Mutual understanding, respect and trust are critical elements of our military ethos. It is the responsibility of Army leadership to ensure those values are extended to all our men and women in uniform.
> 
> “A BOI is an internal, non-judicial, administrative investigation to examine and report on significant events that may affect the functioning of the Canadian Armed Forces. Any irregularity or lack of transparency in decision-making which suggests a member of our Army Team may not have been treated fairly or equally affects our greatest strength—our people.”
> 
> Lieutenant General Marquis Hainse, CMM, MSC, CD
> Commander Canadian Army



Another interesting twist, also via the Army's Commander....


> (On January 27, 2015) at Valcartier Garrison, Lieutenant-General Marquis Hainse, Commander Canadian Army (CCA), presented Master Corporal (Retired) Stéphanie Raymond with her Master Corporal appointment. MCpl (Ret’d) Raymond was also presented with her Canadian Forces Decoration and Certificate of Service.
> 
> These recognitions were confirmed on December 18, 2014, by the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Tom Lawson, in his response to MCpl (Ret'd) Raymond's grievances regarding irregularities in the administration of her career.
> 
> The three presentations represent the first step in addressing the issues she raised in her grievances and reflect the appointment and recognition MCpl (Ret’d) Raymond merited upon retirement.


----------



## McG

This may be about to become the big CAF news story for the next little while.
While I still doubt the magnitude suggested in the Maclean's and L'actualité articles, but it was not inconceivable that the organization  had a problem.  I am glad that we will now have the results of somebody who has looked as source evidence as opposed to fantastically extrapolated from numbers.  The CAF may come off looking really bad (or so the speculation seems to be going), but that does not matter if the discoveries and recommendations help improve the organization for the long run. 


> *Canadian Forces brace for report on sexual misconduct in the ranks
> Review by former Supreme Court justice expected to blast military leadership*
> James Cudmore
> CBC News
> 28 Apr 2015
> 
> An external investigation of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces will target military leadership for failing to better manage the problems of discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault in the ranks, CBC News has learned.
> 
> Sources familiar with the report say the language used by former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps in her report is "quite inflammatory."
> 
> Officers at the highest level of the Forces are bracing for the report, which was described as "pretty nasty."
> 
> "The report is pretty bad … and won't be good for the Canadian Armed Forces, especially the leadership," one source said.
> 
> The military has been preparing for the report's publication for more than a month, and CBC News has learned the government intends to make it public by the end of the week, likely as soon as Thursday, barring any change in plans.
> 
> Several senior military officials, including Gen. Tom Lawson, outgoing chief of the defence staff, will be part of a Defence Department presentation of the damning report.
> 
> Whatever Deschamps learned has apparently shaken the senior ranks of the military.
> 
> "The report is not something [the chief of defence staff] will take lightly," one source said.
> 
> *Top female general to lead response*
> 
> In February, Lawson established the Canadian Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct. It's led by Canada's highest-ranking woman, Maj.-Gen. Christine Whitecross, and supported by a top female sergeant-major, Chief Warrant Officer Helen Wheeler.
> 
> It's expected Whitecross will be there when the report is released this week and will offer her plan to solve the problems it highlights.
> 
> Lawson ordered the external review of sexual misconduct within the Canadian military more than a year ago after a spate of stories in the media suggested the military did not take seriously its responsibility to prevent and investigate misconduct against female soldiers. Some reports suggested sexual assault had reached epidemic proportions in the military.
> 
> An article published by Maclean's and L'actualité reviewed military statistics and said an average of about 178 incidents of sexual misconduct are investigated every year. The magazine suggested only about one in 10 assaults is typically reported, suggesting the number of incidents inside the military each year is likely more than 1,780, or about five per day.
> 
> The fallout from that report led the Commons defence committee last May to question the military's top general. Lawson conceded he needed more information about the scope of the problem.
> 
> "I need to know if barriers exist in reporting incidents of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment and need to be certain that the chain of command is reacting to complaints appropriately," he told MPs.
> 
> *Review looked at rules, procedures*
> 
> Lawson said the external review he ordered would look at the rules, procedures and the processes the military uses to respond to complaints of sexual misconduct so that more women will trust the military to take them seriously and treat them fairly.
> 
> "My heart goes out to them, those individuals need to be well-protected and brought back into an organization that they can trust, so we need to make sure that they can report and that we follow up with investigations and prosecutions," Lawson told reporters last May.
> 
> The former justice was appointed by Lawson to lead the external review. That work began in earnest in June last year and her investigation concluded in January.
> 
> Deschamps visited with hundreds of soldiers at bases across the country. In some cases, she held separate sessions for soldiers based on rank and gender.
> 
> Deschamps has refused several requests to be interviewed, but said by email she was convinced the military would be forthcoming about her report.
> 
> "I am convinced the Armed Forces will do their best to ensure that both the report and their position are well understood," she said.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-brace-for-report-on-sexual-misconduct-in-the-ranks-1.3052154


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So the token power point, a couple hail Mary's and the leadership is washed clean.  :


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Not sure what you mean?

As an organization, we have the same issues any work place in Canada has including this type.  No one should be surprised there.

However, we already have a whole sack full of overlapping policies and regulations to deal with offenders, inckuding the CSD and the CCC.

I don't know, but it seems to me that there are things already in place, and the issue is more victims not willing to report and current policies not being enforced if something is reported.

As always, we are an easy target.  Thanks again to CBC for the suggestive wording in your article.   :


----------



## Remius

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not sure what you mean?
> 
> As an organization, we have the same issues any work place in Canada has including this type.  No one should be surprised there.
> 
> However, we already have a whole sack full of overlapping policies and regulations to deal with offenders, inckuding the CSD and the CCC.
> 
> I don't know, but it seems to me that there are things already in place, and the issue is more victims not willing to report and current policies not being enforced if something is reported.
> 
> As always, we are an easy target.  Thanks again to CBC for the suggestive wording in your article.   :



So because we have all of those things in place we shouldn't take more action and just dismiss this as CBC having a beef against the CAF?

it could be that that sac of policies and regs isn't enough and maybe we could strive for something better?

And I love how in some cases we are just like any other organisation in Canada and in other cases we are not like any other organisation in Canada.  We can't have it both ways.

We are NOT like any other organisation in Canada.  There is a workplace dynamic that is unique and a power relationship between leaders and subordinates that doesn't exist anywhere else therefore will be subject to more scrutiny.

It may seem to you that everything is in place and that victims are not willing to report (obviously it is their fault  : ), but I certainly don't have a crystal ball in that regard.  maybe rather than state that everything is fine move along, you could ask yourself WHY those victims don't come forward and address that because the current sac of policies and regs don't seem to be taking that into account.


----------



## captloadie

I don't think the leadership/subordinate relationship in the CAF is unique. Every workplace where people's careers progress by working hard, and being noticed has the same dynamic. In fact, I think that because we have the policies we do, and the processes in place required to release personnel, we are a much better workplace. The young interns, secretaries, jr partners, underlings, etc. in many other corporate/political entities don't have the same protection. In a lot of those cases, they are just fired or let go when they rebuff unwanted advances or file complaints.

What does make us different is that we in many ways we force individuals to become a family. We make people eat together, sleep in close quarters, spend almost every minute of their time together. That I believe makes the incidents that more traumatic for victims, when one of the family turns on them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think you got the wrong tone from my post.

- we are like any workplace in that we recruit from the Canadian population.  Therefore we encounter similar workplace issues WRT sexual harassment and assault.  The same is true for DUIs, etc.

- I never said anything about the victims being at fault.  Nor would I ever say that.  Ever.

- I never said the staus quo can't be improved.  I merely stated we already have multiple tools in the toolbelt to deal with situations in the CAF.  I can't comment on if they are being used appropriately.  The report should detail its finding regarding that.

- if current policies aren't being applied consistently,  then perhaps the root issue isn't policy itself but its application.

But, thanks for twisting my words around.


----------



## c_canuk

I attended a gathering about this report that's coming out. What I took away from the brief was this:

1) The report was commissioned in response to the hyperbolic allegations in the McLean's article. 

2) The main "damning" statement is that we have an underlying "sexual culture". what that means and how it compares to "culture" I'm not sure. Apparently the focus of the report was not that sexual harassment was rampant as implied by the article, but instead that there is an underlying sexual culture.

3) Apparently Ms Deschamps was horrified that there is frequent use of four letter words, most notably one that starts with c and one that starts with f.

4) There is much handwringing that she is upset about finding dust where she was sent to find boulders. 

Now I haven't read the report yet, I do not know what is in it. I don't know how accurate my impressions are. That said at this time I feel the only reason this is being pushed as a big deal, instead of vindication of our members, is because the hand wringing has the MSM smelling blood in the water.

:Edit for spelling


----------



## George Wallace

Seems to me that MacLeans has brought up the subject of Sexual Assault in the CAF several times in the past decade or so, with at least two covers of their magazine depicting female CAF members and raising the topic of sexual assaults or discrimination.  It makes me wonder, although these are serious allegations, just who at MacLeans is behind these articles.

As Cantor and Capt Loadie post, the CAF does take this seriously, including the fact that there have been FALSE allegations made, and have steps in place to deal with these claims.  That CAF members come from all walks of Canadian society, what problems that exist in other aspects of Canadian society will at times appear in the CAF.  The CAF, due to the nature of its role, has to maintain more stringent rules and regulations on its personnel to ensure criminal activities are exposed and dealt with in accordance with the Law under the Criminal Code of Canada and Military Law.  

Previous MacLeans articles on the Canadian military in 1998:  


May 28, 1998: Rape in the military;

June 1, 1998:  Speaking out on sexual assault in the military;

Dec 14, 1998: Of rape and justice.


----------



## Blackadder1916

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I attended a gathering about this report that's coming out. What I took away from the brief was this:
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> Now I haven't read the report yet, I do not know what is in it. I don't know how accurate my impressions are. That said at this time I feel the only reason this is being pushed as a big deal, instead of vindication of our members, is because the hand wringing has the MSM smelling blood in the water.
> 
> :Edit for spelling



I'm a little confused.  This "gathering" at which you received the "brief", was it organized by your chain of command?  You know, like an O Grp.  Since the report has not yet been released, has the standard for passage of information been lowered to rumour, innuendo and speculation?  I know things likely have changed a lot since I retired, maybe it is much more efficient to deal with this type of info in the morning meeting rather than later in the mess where we used to gossip.  I know, shouldn't be gossiping in the mess, but that's preferable to planning the next sexual conquest.

I will admit to being deliberately condescending and I should apologize.  However, on a serious note, I am genuinely interested in knowing if this was an official gathering at which only speculation was made as to the contents of the report and the discussion seemed to be pointed at painting it as one-sided and no big deal.  If so, I'm a little surprised at the actions of your leadership.


----------



## c_canuk

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused.  This "gathering" at which you received the "brief", was it organized by your chain of command?  You know, like an O Grp.  Since the report has not yet been released, has the standard for passage of information been lowered to rumour, innuendo and speculation?  I know things likely have changed a lot since I retired, maybe it is much more efficient to deal with this type of info in the morning meeting rather than later in the mess where we used to gossip.  I know, shouldn't be gossiping in the mess, but that's preferable to planning the next sexual conquest.
> 
> I will admit to being deliberately condescending and I should apologize.  However, on a serious note, I am genuinely interested in knowing if this was an official gathering at which only speculation was made as to the contents of the report and the discussion seemed to be pointed at painting it as one-sided and no big deal.  If so, I'm a little surprised at the actions of your leadership.



1) I said those were my impressions based on the information I was given and my deductions. Based on the facts of why the report was commisioned and the jist of what the report contains.

2) CWO West and CWO Marchand were the speakers at the gathering, and they seemed very concerned with the report, and at no time did they paint it as no big deal. They seem genuinely concerned about the contents of the report and the impact it will have on the CF and the Public.


----------



## c_canuk

I feel your post deserves a more detailed reply...



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused.  This "gathering" at which you received the "brief", was it organized by your chain of command?



Yes it was an organized event.



> You know, like an O Grp.  Since the report has not yet been released, has the standard for passage of information been lowered to rumour, innuendo and speculation?



The gathering was in the form of a town hall.




> I know things likely have changed a lot since I retired, maybe it is much more efficient to deal with this type of info in the morning meeting rather than later in the mess where we used to gossip.  I know, shouldn't be gossiping in the mess, but that's preferable to planning the next sexual conquest.



I don't think that CWO West and CWO Marchand would appreciate your implications that they are spreading gossip or any others you might be making.



> I will admit to being deliberately condescending and I should apologize.  However, on a serious note, I am genuinely interested in knowing if this was an official gathering



It was official.



> at which only speculation was made as to the contents of the report



I believe the speakers were not speculating, I believe they have read it and that is why they were having a town hall.



> and the discussion seemed to be pointed at painting it as one-sided and no big deal.  If so, I'm a little surprised at the actions of your leadership.



At no point was the discussion painting the report as no big deal, it was presented to us as something that should greatly concern us, then gave us some highlights of the report. The rest is my deductions based on what I was given. Make no mistake, the report is being taken quite seriously.

I never said that the report was being taken as no big deal. What I wrote was what I gathered from the presentation:



> 1) The report was commissioned in response to the hyperbolic allegations in the McLean's article.
> 
> 2) The main "damning" statement is that we have an underlying "sexual culture". what that means and how it compares to "culture" I'm not sure. Apparently the focus of the report was not that sexual harassment was rampant as implied by the article, but instead that there is an underlying sexual culture.
> 
> 3) Apparently Ms Deschamps was horrified that there is frequent use of four letter words, most notably one that starts with c and one that starts with f.
> 
> 4) There is much handwringing that she is upset...



The rest was just my opinion on the matter



> ... about finding dust where she was sent to find boulders.
> 
> Now I haven't read the report yet, I do not know what is in it. I don't know how accurate my impressions are. That said at this time I feel the only reason this is being pushed as a big deal, instead of vindication of our members, is because the hand wringing has the MSM smelling blood in the water.



I hope I've been clear enough, and answered your questions. If I have not, please let me know and I will attempt to clarify further.


----------



## c_canuk

Link to the Report.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-support-services/external-review-sexual-mh-2015/summary.page

You can get a link to the rest of the report, or a pdf of the entire thing, as well as the action plan and other documentation there.

As for the content of the report, some of it had me rolling my eyes and it pretty much confirms that the McLean's article was inaccurate. 

That said it does highlight some serious issues and provides a framework to address them that should most definitely be taken seriously.


Some of the issues, like:

Lack of central repository/authority for information and reporting
Lack of plain language in written documentation/existing information
Lack of equal access to resources due to geographical reasons

seem to be endemic of the organization as a whole, and not just in regards to this one aspect. 

Hopefully in solving those issues the action plan can also provide direction for positive change throughout the organization, where these problems also exist.

Other issues brought up in the report, I hope can be solved with the independent reporting system mentioned in the recommendations that the CDS has accepted.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And here's the CDS's response/"action plan":


> The Chief of Defence Staff, General Tom Lawson, today released an action plan to address inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) following several recent incidents. He also publicly released the independent external review authority’s report into sexual misconduct and sexual harassment.
> 
> He was accompanied at a news conference today by Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer Kevin West, Madame Marie Deschamps, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice and the External Review Authority, and Major-General Chris Whitecross, who is leading the CAF Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct.
> 
> Quick Facts
> 
> In April 2014, the CDS ordered an independent external review to look into sexual misconduct and sexual harassment cases involving CAF members following a number of media reports on the subject and a subsequent Internal Review. Madame Marie Deschamps, a former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, began this review in June 2014 and completed it in March 2015.
> 
> The CDS directed the creation of the Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct in February 2015. The initial mandate of the Strategic Response Team was to conduct a detailed review of the final report produced by the External Review Authority, and develop an action plan to address the report’s recommendations.
> 
> The strategy released today allows the CAF to deliver a decisive response, while allowing the organization to further understand and solve the more complex aspects of the problem and develop more comprehensive solutions.
> 
> Highlights of the action plan include:
> 
> Engaging leadership at all levels to support and engage in the changes required;
> 
> Examining what structure is required to centralize the responsibility for prevention, training, victim support, research, and reporting of inappropriate sexual behaviour;
> 
> Assessing existing inappropriate sexual behaviour reporting processes with the aim of encouraging increased reporting by making the process easier to navigate for victims;
> 
> A comprehensive review of all language and definitions associated with inappropriate sexual behaviour;
> 
> Conducting a comprehensive review of all relevant policies associated with inappropriate sexual behaviour, with the objective of integrating them more coherently;
> 
> Developing options to better inform victims of the complaint processes that are currently in place;
> 
> Examining the delivery of support to members who come forward with allegations; and
> 
> Updating the education and training curriculum both in terms of content and delivery.
> 
> Support and referrals for any member dealing with sexual misconduct or sexual assault are provided as required from the Military Police’s Victims Assistance Program, the Canadian Forces Health Services, Canadian Forces Member Assistance Program, military chaplains, military family resource centres, and civilian social services.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The Commandant of CFNES spoke to all instructors during the lunch hour today.  I am told, by one of them, that it was to speak on this reports imminent release and a reminder to all that as CAF members they were to refrain from commenting on the report's contents on social media.  I don't know how long that is in force for as I am presently a student and wasn't present at the briefing.


----------



## PanaEng

Christie Blatchford has a nice counterpoint to the report and the language it used.
You can find it in the Ottawa Citizen.


----------



## George Wallace

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Christie Blatchford has a nice counterpoint to the report and the language it used.
> You can find it in the Ottawa Citizen.



Her National post article, with a short video of her opinions (unfortunately cut off too early) at this link:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-troubling-report-on-sexualized-culture-in-canadas-military-may-overstate-problem


----------



## PanaEng

Thanks George.


----------



## George Wallace

Here are Christie Blatchford's words:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Christie Blatchford: Troubling report on ‘sexualized culture’ in Canada’s military may overstate problem
> The National Post
> Christie Blatchford | April 30, 2015 3:32 PM ET
> 
> At first blush it’s a withering report — there’s a “sexualized culture” within the Canadian Forces that is so pervasive it’s “conducive to more serious incidents of sexual harassment and assault” and so hostile to women that victims rarely bother to report or complain.
> 
> That’s the picture in an 87-page report written by former Supreme Court of Canada judge Marie Deschamps, who was asked last summer by retiring Chief of the Defence Staff Tom Lawson to examine the scope of the problem.
> 
> The report, called External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, was released in Ottawa Thursday.
> 
> Lawson’s request came in the wake of sensational allegations in Maclean’s magazine and its Quebec sister publication, L’actualite, documenting specific incidents of assault and the military’s failure to do anything much about them.
> 
> In fact, Deschamps’ report mirrors the magazines’ findings and tone, though it lacks the real names and details that gave the news stories such punch. Confidentiality and anonymity are the imprimatur of this report.
> 
> The former judge’s language is inflammatory: Unnamed cadets at the two Canadian military colleges described sexual harassment as a “passage oblige,” almost a mandatory experience, and said sexual assault was “an ever-present risk”; within the lower ranks, unnamed women said they are routinely exposed to “swear words and highly degrading expressions”; experiences with sexual harassment and assault “begin as early as basic training”; unnamed leaders such as senior non-commissioned officers, or NCOs, turn a blind eye to misconduct; some of those charged with investigating it, unnamed military police, don’t even know what constitutes consent to sex and infecting it all, a climate where such behaviour is tolerated, or ignored or sanctioned with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
> 
> And though Deschamps grudgingly acknowledges that unnamed higher-ranked women “seemingly do not suffer as much from the sexualized environment” and that some particularly “resolute” victims had been able to confront the perpetrators, she dismisses them as the exception.
> 
> 
> She actually concludes, of such non-complainers, “this is largely because members appear to internalize the prevailing sexualized culture as they move up through the organization.”
> 
> Deschamps makes 10 recommendations, probably the most critical the establishment of an outside-the-chain-of-command agency, with the temporary acronym of CASAH (Centre for Accountability for Sexual Assault and Harassment), which would be responsible for receiving all reports of inappropriate sexual conduct, training, victim support and research.
> 
> That only makes sense in the small, intimate world of the CF, particularly on bases or when troops are deployed.
> 
> That soldiers sometimes not only work together but also often live side-by-side makes it more important that victims have a safe place, outside of the hierarchy, to report.
> 
> But another recommendation would see soldiers allowed to report harassment or assault to the CASAH “without the obligation to trigger a formal complaint process” – a probable recipe for the very sort of mess that saw two Liberal Members of Parliament recently suspended, their names and careers in tatters, after two NDP MPs made serious informal allegations against them, but declined to file complaints.
> 
> The former judge, who retired from the high court in 2012, held town hall meetings at military bases across Canada, did telephone interviews, accepted written statements and organized focus groups, and in total heard from 700 individuals.
> 
> That’s a significant number from across the ranks and I accept that the military, like most civilian institutions from the House of Commons on down, likely has its share of the handsy, sexist and worse, and that the women who came forward to Maclean’s and L’actualite suffered.
> 
> But that’s a fraction of the 100,000 regular, reserve and civilian members of the CF, and in Deschamps’ florid broad brush strokes, I didn’t even recognize the organization I think I know pretty well.
> 
> I’ve spent an extended amount of time with Canadian soldiers in three very different ways.
> 
> Once, I was the lone woman and lone reporter on a Royal Canadian Regiment re-enactment of the regiment’s trip to the Yukon in the late 1800s (we travelled by river raft to Dawson City). In the first summer of the war in the former Yugoslavia, when Canadian troops, the Van Doos, were tasked with opening up the Sarajevo airport for humanitarian aid. I was there for several weeks. And finally, in 2006-07, I made four trips, mostly with the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry but also with the other two regular infantry regiments and countless reservists, as an embedded journalist with troops in Kandahar.
> 
> I certainly heard plenty of profanity and raw language (engaged in it too, often the worst offender) but in none of those places was there a simmering highly sexualized culture, let alone one that was dangerous to women. The tensions were those that I consider normal in fraught environments, or in places where men outnumber women (such as the sports world, where once I worked).
> 
> Now, that I was never once alarmed or offended may mean only that I am beyond offence, or as Deschamps would say, that I have internalized it all or am particularly resolute – in other words, a freak who wouldn’t recognize a highly sexualized culture if it bit me in the arse.
> 
> But the military she describes is so completely contrary to my own experience that I feel compelled to say so.
> 
> I found NCOs to be generally good leaders, some superb. Most officers I got to know — a handful of majors and one particularly stellar lieutenant-colonel — are ridiculously well-educated, sophisticated and modern thinkers. At the Royal Military College in Kingston, where I’ve been a couple of times, I found the smartest and most engaged students, women and men, in the country; I really struggle to accept that they all would just blithely tolerate sexual harassment as a right of passage. I’ve also adopted a reserve regiment, and have spent a fair bit of time in their collective company, even at the sort of booze-fuelled events Deschamps so dislikes.
> 
> The report is likely to cause what is now the usual shock/horror/outrage, as did the CBC’s internal report into its own handling of the Jian Ghomeshi scandal, as did the unfolding of the anonymous allegations against the two Liberal MPs. The judge refers to both those stories in her introduction.
> 
> It’s in the third sentence of that intro that she writes, “The problem of sexual misconduct in society at large cannot be overstated.”
> 
> Actually, it’s often overstated, and that’s just what she’s done here, again.
> 
> National Post
> cblatchford@postmedia.com



LINK


----------



## cupper

A Bravo Zulu to Ms. Blatchford for speaking out.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I haven't read the report and offer these comments, not as a reply to the report but a comment on MY experience in just shy of 26 years in the CAF.

- I have served in the Reserves, and the Regular Force.  
- I have been posted to army, navy and air force units.  
- I have worked in field units, line squadrons, Training Establishments, and Headquarters in those years.
- I have served in Canada, the US, the UK, Mediterranean,  and the Middle East.  

In all of that time, those units, those locations, I have knowledge of only 2 incidents that were sexual harassment in nature.  In one case, a female recruit was harassing, sexually harassing and had assaulted a male soldier who wasn't interested in a relationship with her.  Once this was discovered, the CofC reacted quickly and SIU was brought in.  That was 1998.  In the other case, a course instructor had made inappropriate comments during an inspection of the female candidates room on  CLC, and looked at things not appropriate for him to look at during the inspection.  The females reported it to the course CofC immediately.   The instructor was removed immediately,  disciplinary and admin action was taken and the Crse WO and Crse O were also held aaccountable.   This was back in 1993.

22 years ago, those female Cpls knew what happened was wrong and did something about it.

Am I saying there is no issue today?  No.  

Am I saying the report appears to be inflated based on the article above?   My 2.5 decades of experience in both Res and Reg forces, in all three environments from TEs to line units and HQs doesn't agree with this assessment and the word 'endemic'.   

I take exception to our entire professional institution being painted with such a wide, all encompassing brush and say thank you to Mrs Blatchford for her article.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It doesn't matter how any of _feel_ about this report, nor are our individual experiences relevant. There is a problem ... some members are being treated poorly, not given the respect that is their due and even assaulted by other members. That ought to be, must be, in my opinion, unacceptable to all of us: newly joined privates and major generals alike.

It also doesn't matter if the report is overstated; perhaps Mme Justice Deschamps should not have been shocked at the sorts of language she heard; perhaps the actual numbers are small; none of that matters either. There is a problem ... some leaders are failing the troops under their command.

Maybe the CF is just about the same as society at large; maybe we have all become desensitised to sexual violence; that doesn't matter either. There is problem ... the CDS has promised action; he must do that; he owes nothing less than action to the men and women under his command.

The actions the CDS takes should make service life better for all, without, in any way, weakening the military ethos.


----------



## a_majoor

Two points from my quick reading of this:

1. One of the recommendations (if I am reading it correctly) suggests that a complaint can be laid without triggering a formal investigation. Withdrawing a person's due process rights is even more abhorrent than the problem it is supposed to eliminate. Any complaint _should_ be formally investigated, but in an open and transparent manner. People cannot and should not ever be expected to respond to what is essentially hersay and innuendo.

2. My other fear is that the definition of sexual assault will be broadened so much that determining what took place will become largely subjective. Once again, this really cuts the due process rights out from under the accused; how would anyone be able to sense what another person "felt" about a particular issue, unless that is clearly articulated.

These are not idle complaints or observations. The US higher education system is being rocked by complaints of sexual assault which are not being investigated by the police or punished by the judiciary, but rather through administrative "star chambers", in which the accused student has few options and little ability to respond since their due process rights are not being respected by _these_ administrative tribunals. (You might note that the "Human Rights" commissions and tribunals in Canada already operate under similar rules). Even when the complainant recants or investigation by the competent authorities (police) fail to turn up any evidence, the accused student usually faces expulsion, restrictive "conditions" and essentially has their lives taken away and ruined.

So my recommendation is _not_ to create a totally new system, but to vigorously use the system we already have (including sending investigations to the NIS or the RCMP if the NIS is not available or suitable for some reason). Sexual assault is a crime, and we have a criminal justice system capable of dealing with it.


----------



## Takeniteasy

I agree with Campbell, the CAF is socially constructed through Canadian culture. If any institution is going to lead the way then why not the CF. Legislation and policy is only the first step, actual acceptance within the rank and file is a whole other story? Being told to "ignore the situation and let the COC take care of it" and "we need to access your mental competence" would deter anyone from coming forward with a formal complaint. Individuals in the COC need to verbally demonstrate and then actively pursue complaints made by the rank and file in order to ensure a 100% no tolerance solution. Performance measures in a professional environment are based on actual individual and group outcomes that are based on institutional directives, not on individual ideology or values that are opposed to Canadian values and morals. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what we strive to uphold and protect.
Lets be absolute in our convictions, if it happens to one, it happens to all! And our strength will enable Canada to empower individuals in their pursuit for their rights and freedoms.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> nor are our individual experiences relevant.



I will have to disagreee.  Our collective individual experiences are the sum total experiences in the CF, no?  Should we all just nod our head in agreement with statements that are inaccurate to our own experience, experience that was from the inside, immersed in the day to day life over decades?  I think not.



> That ought to be, must be, in my opinion, unacceptable to all of us: newly joined privates and major generals alike.



Fully agree.



> It also doesn't matter if the report is overstated; perhaps Mme Justice Deschamps should not have been shocked at the sorts of language she heard; perhaps the actual numbers are small; none of that matters either. There is a problem ... some leaders are failing the troops under their command.



Come again?  Accuracy doesn't matter?  How can something be fixed correctly if the nature and extent of the problem isn't identified correctly?  Or should we just hammer all our nails with 10lb sledgehammers.

Don't get me wrong, there are men AND women in the CF who will cross the line and they need to be dealt with, and I also have no issues with changes that improve the current ways and means.  I do not like suggestive wording that paints each and everyone one of us poorly.  Thankfully, people like Mrs Blatchford are a voice for us.



> The actions the CDS takes should make service life better for all, without, in any way, weakening the military ethos.



Agree!


----------



## pbi

Wow. Go away for a year and look what happens! Since I kicked off this thread......

I agree with a number of ERC's points:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...There is a problem ... some members are being treated poorly, not given the respect that is their due and even assaulted by other members. That ought to be, must be, in my opinion, unacceptable to all of us: newly joined privates and major generals alike.... There is a problem ... some leaders are failing the troops under their command... ... the CDS has promised action; he must do that; he owes nothing less than action to the men and women under his command.The actions the CDS takes should make service life better for all, without, in any way, weakening the military ethos..



And (surprisingly, me being such a spineless, left of centre progressive liberal dissembler ;D) I agree fully with Thucydides:



> _1. One of the recommendations (if I am reading it correctly) suggests that a complaint can be laid without triggering a formal investigation. ..People cannot and should not ever be expected to respond to what is essentially hersay and innuendo.
> 
> 2. My other fear is that the definition of sexual assault will be broadened so much that determining what took place will become largely subjective...how would anyone be able to sense what another person "felt" about a particular issue, unless that is clearly articulated.
> 
> ...So my recommendation is not to create a totally new system, but to vigorously use the system we already have (including sending investigations to the NIS or the RCMP if the NIS is not available or suitable for some reason). Sexual assault is a crime, and we have a criminal justice system capable of dealing with it._



To state my bias, I am very happy to see any actual proven offender in this regard punished in the most exemplary manner possible, and then summarily booted out. While serving, I  conducted two very unpleasant investigations into anti-female sexual harassment of the most disgusting sort, so I have no doubt that it has happened. It might still be happening. I really hope not: it would be sad and disappointing to think that we are slipping backwards, especially now that we have female soldiers who have died in combat like any male soldier. Such sickening behaviour would not honour them.

However, I am also worried, because I think I smell over-reaction. While my uniformed days are long behind me, I lived through the period in the 1990's when the CAF, in a desperate attempt to show that it took sexual harrassment and assault seriously, was creating a climate of fear. I lived through two boards of inquiry as one of the  respondents to false claims of sexual harassment by a disgruntled female soldier: even though we knew it was BS, it was scary. As a result of that experience, for my remaining time in uniform I would never interview a female in my office without either having the door open or another person, female if possible, present. Maybe not right, but I felt safer. (Sounds a bit cowardly, I know...)

As Thucydides suggests, the very *WORST* possible outcome would be if the CAF rushed about creating even more external "bolt-on" structures and systems, further weakening and hampering the chain of command (which was already being weakened and hampered when I was in).

If (if...) the chain of command has demonstrably failed, then bloody well hold those who have failed responsible, regardless of whether they are section 2ICs or Bde Commanders. I am assuming of course, that these failed leaders will be identified by due process, not by a secret inquisition. But for God's sake, let's not invent any more "helpful" organizations.

Soldiers are soldiers. We have female soldiers. We have gay soldiers. So what? Grow up and get over it, and don't treat people badly for things they can't change. Worry about whether or not people are good soldiers.

But don't, please DON'T plunge the CAF into another time of scurrying over-reaction, panic, and witch-hunting. It won't help anybody.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell

pbi said:
			
		

> ...
> However, I am also worried, because I think I smell over-reaction. While my uniformed days are long behind me, I lived through the period in the 1990's when the CAF, in a desperate attempt to show that it took sexual harrassment and assault seriously, was creating a climate of fear. I lived through two boards of inquiry as one of the  respondents to false claims of sexual harassment by a disgruntled female soldier: even though we knew it was BS, it was scary. As a result of that experience, for my remaining time in uniform I would never interview a female in my office without either having the door open or another person, female if possible, present. Maybe not right, but I felt safer. (Sounds a bit cowardly, I know...)
> 
> As Thucydides suggests, the very *WORST* possible outcome would be if the CAF rushed about creating even more external "bolt-on" structures and systems, further weakening and hampering the chain of command (which was already being weakened and hampered when I was in).
> 
> If (if...) the chain of command has demonstrably failed, then bloody well hold those who have failed responsible, regardless of whether they are section 2ICs or Bde Commanders. I am assuming of course, that these failed leaders will be identified by due process, not by a secret inquisition. But for God's sake, let's not invent any more "helpful" organizations.
> 
> Soldiers are soldiers. We have female soldiers. We have gay soldiers. So what? Grow up and get over it, and don't treat people badly for things they can't change. Worry about whether or not people are good soldiers.
> 
> But don't, please DON'T plunge the CAF into another time of scurrying over-reaction, panic, and witch-hunting. It won't help anybody.
> 
> Cheers



 :bravo:  &    :ditto:


----------



## George Wallace

Excellent points pbi.


----------



## c_canuk

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Two points from my quick reading of this:
> 
> 1. One of the recommendations (if I am reading it correctly) suggests that a complaint can be laid without triggering a formal investigation. Withdrawing a person's due process rights is even more abhorrent than the problem it is supposed to eliminate. Any complaint _should_ be formally investigated, but in an open and transparent manner. People cannot and should not ever be expected to respond to what is essentially hersay and innuendo.
> 
> 2. My other fear is that the definition of sexual assault will be broadened so much that determining what took place will become largely subjective. Once again, this really cuts the due process rights out from under the accused; how would anyone be able to sense what another person "felt" about a particular issue, unless that is clearly articulated.



I don't know what form the independent review organization will take, however, my read on it was that it would provide an anonymous way to report a problem. That its focus would be on investigation not enacting punishment.

One reason, it is claimed, that harassment is not reported is the allegedly person suffering the harassment feels they cannot resolve the problem at their level, and now have to potentially involve every link in their CoC. 

The premises here are that the harassment is at a marginal level such that the "victim" may feel that while it's unacceptable, elevating it up the CoC is unwarranted and will be seen as starting drama. There is also a loss of confidentiality for both parties at each step in the CoC as yet another person becomes involved. The current system lacks delicate handling.

Having an outside agency that can be the sole POC for both parties during an investigation keeps the amount of people privy to the details to a minimum. Most of these details would be hearsay to begin with. The investigators would also not be a part of the member's CoC after the investigation is over, so fears of the details colouring their superior's future handling of them is less a concern. 

Should the accuser not feel charges are waranted, communication within an understanding and educational tone can be effected so that positive change and corrections can take place without anyone having negative career or social implications, on either side of the complaint.

There is also the aspect that should someone need therapeutic help, but does not want to pursue charges, they can go to the  organization for access to mental wellness resources, without having the CoC involved.

As long as the independant organization cannot engage in any punitive measures outside of a formal charge, I think it would be a good step towards the ideal solution.

Especially if they also become the central repository for all policy and direction for sexual misconduct in the CAF.

EDIT: it's its, spelling


----------



## George Wallace

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I don't know what form the independent review organization will take, however, my read on it was that it would provide an anonymous way to report a problem. That its focus would be on investigation not enacting punishment.
> 
> One reason, it is claimed, that harassment is not reported is the allegedly person suffering the harassment feels they cannot resolve the problem at their level, and now have to potentially involve every link in their CoC.
> 
> The premises here are that the harassment is at a marginal level such that the "victim" may feel that while it's unacceptable, elevating it up the CoC is unwarranted and will be seen as starting drama. There is also a loss of confidentiality for both parties at each step in the CoC as yet another person becomes involved. The current system lacks delicate handling.
> 
> Having an outside agency that can be the sole POC for both parties during an investigation keeps the amount of people privy to the details to a minimum. Most of these details would be hersay to begin with. The investigators would also not be a part of the member's CoC after the investigation is over, so fears of the details colouring their superior's future handling of them is less a concern.
> 
> Should the accuser not feel charges are waranted, communication within an understanding and educational tone can be effected so that positive change and corrections can take place without anyone having negative career or social implications, on either side of the complaint.
> 
> There is also the aspect that should someone need therapeutic help, but does not want to pursue charges, they can go to the  organization for access to mental wellness resources, without having the CoC involved.
> 
> As long as the independant organization cannot engage in any punitive measures outside of a formal charge, I think it would be a good step towards the ideal solution.
> 
> Especially if they also become the central repository for all policy and direction for sexual misconduct in the CAF.
> 
> EDIT: it's its



Meanwhile, we already have measures in place to cover "Workplace Harassment" and a resolution process under those rules to resolve issues, including the point that legal action could be instituted if an action or event were to be deemed illegal or criminal in nature.   We have Harassment Advisers, an investigative process, etc. already in place.  Are we now committed to create another level of redundancy to cover what we have in place?


----------



## PanaEng

Well said.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> I don't know what form the independent review organization will take, however, my read on it was that it would provide an anonymous way to report a problem. That its focus would be on investigation not enacting punishment.
> 
> One reason, it is claimed, that harassment is not reported is the allegedly person suffering the harassment feels they cannot resolve the problem at their level, and now have to potentially involve every link in their CoC.
> 
> The premises here are that the harassment is at a marginal level such that the "victim" may feel that while it's unacceptable, elevating it up the CoC is unwarranted and will be seen as starting drama. There is also a loss of confidentiality for both parties at each step in the CoC as yet another person becomes involved. The current system lacks delicate handling.
> 
> Having an outside agency that can be the sole POC for both parties during an investigation keeps the amount of people privy to the details to a minimum. Most of these details would be hersay to begin with. The investigators would also not be a part of the member's CoC after the investigation is over, so fears of the details colouring their superior's future handling of them is less a concern.
> 
> Should the accuser not feel charges are waranted, communication within an understanding and educational tone can be effected so that positive change and corrections can take place without anyone having negative career or social implications, on either side of the complaint.
> 
> There is also the aspect that should someone need therapeutic help, but does not want to pursue charges, they can go to the  organization for access to mental wellness resources, without having the CoC involved.
> 
> As long as the independant organization cannot engage in any punitive measures outside of a formal charge, I think it would be a good step towards the ideal solution.
> 
> Especially if they also become the central repository for all policy and direction for sexual misconduct in the CAF.
> 
> EDIT: it's its


----------



## c_canuk

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, we already have measures in place to cover "Workplace Harassment" and a resolution process under those rules to resolve issues, including the point that legal action could be instituted if an action or event were to be deemed illegal or criminal in nature.   We have Harassment Advisers, an investigative process, etc. already in place.  Are we now committed to create another level of redundancy to cover what we have in place?



My hope is that all sexual misconduct processes, documentation, education, investigation, and resolution falls into the new organization's AOR. My impression is that is exactly what some of the 10 recommendations call for.


----------



## George Wallace

c_canuk said:
			
		

> My hope is that all sexual misconduct processes, documentation, education, investigation, and resolution falls into the new organization's AOR. My impression is that is exactly what some of the 10 recommendations call for.



OK.  And then do we create another process for any misconduct, documentation, education, investigation, and resolution to matters that are racial in nature.   And another that may cover religious misconduct, discrimination, education, investigation and resolution processes.......and another to cover matters of ethnicity.....and so on and so on?  One process is in existence now to cover ALL forms of discrimination, harassment, improprieties, etc.  How far do you want to go, by creating numerous different processes to cover what is already covered in an all encompassing process?


----------



## cupper

A couple of things stood out for me when I read the report.

First, I agree that this may be an overstatement of what the problems really are. 

My impression with respect to the issue of harassment is that  there is an excessive use of derogatory terms or expressions used in a training and everyday work setting which female members may well find offensive. Specifically the use of expressions directed at male members which essentially compare them to females in the context that females are weaker than males. (That was difficult to put together without referencing specific examples). The creates a hostile workplace environment because of the perception that females are considered less capable. When extended and put together with the minority view held by some that females don't belong in the military, I can see how this can be perceived as endemic. But how prevalent is this?

Second, I found it difficult to follow the discussion of sexual harassment vs sexual assault vs inappropriate sexual behaviour vs adverse personal relationships. It seemed to me that terminology and the understanding of how it applies in different contexts was tripping her up. I'm not entirely sure that the recommendations for changing definitions and clarifying terms as she seems to think is necessary will provide any more clarity.

I don't agree that policies regarding sexual harassment and sexual misconduct and so forth need to be revised so much as they need to be consolidated into one single reference document that can be easily accessible to all members. Policies and regulations are spread across many documents, such as the CCC, QR&O's, DAOD's, other applicable Laws and Acts of Parliament which govern Federal workplaces and employees.

I find it disappointing that the Judge has painted the entire CF with a broad brush, and disgusted that the media has chosen to grasp onto a poorly worded description of what the problems really are. Sensationalized reporting yesterday made the CF out to be nothing but a bastion of hypersexed males that thrive on misogyny.

With respect to a separate system to investigate claims sexual assault and harassment, I am of mixed minds about how effective this would be, and how problematic it would be with respect to its effects to the regular chain of command. And I don't think it would really address the concerns of victim privacy. As is pointed out in the report, the CF is a small community. Because of that, it's like any small one business town where everyone knows what is going on and knows everyone else's business. Privacy is at a premium.

And having a system where a complaint can be either investigated or put on the back burner at the discretion of the victim does no one any good. Yes, it allows the victim to get the necessary support and treatment to help them move on, but if the complaint is not acted upon, how is that any different from the current problem that the review authority says in inherent in the system now? And how does it help address the issue that there is someone within the ranks who has perpetrated a crime or violation of the regs who will remain unpunished, and potentially go on to do the same thing with another victim?

It is interesting that the media has reported that only a couple of the recommendations have been accepted, and that many are nuder review, specifically the establishment of the CASAH. The CoC has acknowledged there is a problem, but may not agree as to the means and methods for addressing the problem.

I agree with the view that has been expressed here that perhaps we need to look at how the current regulations and policies are being applied and ensure that they are being followed as intended by all levels. Something does need to be done, if only to allow female members a sense of security and inclusion in the CF, rather than feeling as less capable and burdensome, fearful for their personal safety.

Just my  :2c: , and I apologize if that rambled. It was a bad night of insomnia.


----------



## Loachman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> hersay



Intentional...?


----------



## c_canuk

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  And then do we create another process for any misconduct, documentation, education, investigation, and resolution to matters that are racial in nature.   And another that may cover religious misconduct, discrimination, education, investigation and resolution processes.......and another to cover matters of ethnicity.....and so on and so on?  One process is in existence now to cover ALL forms of discrimination, harassment, improprieties, etc.  How far do you want to go, by creating numerous different processes to cover what is already covered in an all encompassing process?



I think one main point of the report, is that we do not have an all encompassing process. What we have a patchwork of overlapping processes and documentation that are separately administered across multiple AORs with different levels of enforcement in different geographical locations. 

I agree that creating an independent organization for every brand of misconduct is probably counter productive.

I could see the obvious solution would be not to limit the independent entity to just one brand of misconduct as the process would be near identical for all of them.


----------



## c_canuk

Loachman said:
			
		

> Intentional...?




Fixed, thanks for pointing out that unintended typo.

Cupper, I think that I illustrated specific points that would address much of your previous post.


----------



## George Wallace

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think one main point of the report, is that we do not have an all encompassing process. What we have a patchwork of overlapping processes and documentation that are separately administered across multiple AORs with different levels of enforcement in different geographical locations.
> 
> I agree that creating an independent organization for every brand of misconduct is probably counter productive.
> 
> I could see the obvious solution would be not to limit the independent entity to just one brand of misconduct as the process would be near identical for all of them.



Way back when, I took the Harassment Adviser Crse. It was an eye opener. I left wondering what kind of life one could have if one had to constantly look over their shoulder in their attempts not to offend anyone. 

I am a firm believer that it should be a compulsory Crse for all MCpl and above. It exposes you to what constitutes harassment and assault.  Remember; assault is not necessarily restricted to "physical", but can also be "verbal" and now with the internet and twitter, in a written/text form.  The HA Crse lays out the process of how the complaint is done, processed, and recorded.  It stresses the fact that the CO is to be informed immediately of a 'complaint' made, and provides the protection of anonymity to both the person laying the complaint and the person being accused in the complaint.  It introduces some of the Laws involved and explores the Charter of Human Rights.  The Crse lays out the steps followed once a complaint has been made and carries on through resolution.  The Crse also covers the administration of the 'complaint' and how long the records must be kept.  It really is an eye opener.  

I find it redundant to be suggesting that another form of handling these cases has to be created when one already exists.  I feel that if all supervisors, MCpl and up, had this education it may sort out this problem and the Public's views on the military.....especially those who may have agendas to discredit the CAF.


----------



## c_canuk

I don't think the case is being made to add another layer, I think the case is being made to replace all the layers with a single entity.

I don't think having a single entity precludes SHARP/HA training, infact it could be part of the yearly DAG process. Delivery of this trg would be within the AOR of this independent org, as I envision it. Same as the SISIP financial/insurance briefs ect.

The CDS seems to be saying he is going to action all of the recommendations, one of which is to establish this organization. 

It seems like it's going to happen, I'm just explaining what form I hope it takes and why.


----------



## George Wallace

SHARP and Differential Training (Are you an "X" or a "Y"?) were just that: training.  Often dependent on who run the training as to how relevant the training was.  The Harassment Advisor Crse is a Qualification, which holds responsibilities.  Just a little bit different than annual DAG training.


----------



## captloadie

For someone who has just gone through the harassment process, I can say this: it's broken. I was a respondent, and although the complaint was over a minor issue (in my opinion), it was an unwieldable process with conflicting regulations on how it was to proceed depending on which guide you read (RO, HA, HI). There was also no defined final resolution. It was also not anonymous. I know exactly what the complainant wrote. I have an almost word for word summary of what the witnesses all said. If my experience was anything like what a complainant would go through for a sexual harassment complaint, I'd be surprised anybody would come forward.


----------



## George Wallace

captloadie said:
			
		

> For someone who has just gone through the harassment process, I can say this: it's broken. I was a respondent, and although the complaint was over a minor issue (in my opinion), it was an unwieldable process with conflicting regulations on how it was to proceed depending on which guide you read (RO, HA, HI). There was also no defined final resolution. It was also not anonymous. I know exactly what the complainant wrote. I have an almost word for word summary of what the witnesses all said. If my experience was anything like what a complainant would go through for a sexual harassment complaint, I'd be surprised anybody would come forward.



Then let's fix it.  

As for anonymous, it has full disclosure for all parties involved, but is not open to the public (what I should have said).  If it is public knowledge, then the "rumour mill" has been at work.


----------



## dimsum

From the G&M, an article by the mother of Capt Nichola Goddard:



> I am concerned that people reading the report will get a lopsided view of women in the military. In 2003, Nichola came to my Grade 9 class to talk to the students about her life in the military. They wrote to her afterwards and asked her some questions. One of them was: “Are there a lot of women in the army?” Her reply is worth recalling.
> 
> “The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are some, and there are more and more every day. It is definitely not the right lifestyle for everyone, men or women, but I really don’t believe that gender has anything to do with whether you can be a good soldier. I’ve worked with women who have been five-foot-three and 100 pounds, and carried far more for far longer than guys who were six feet and and 200 pounds… so much of what makes you a good soldier is your attitude and heart. And how good a shot you are with your rifle, I guess.”
> 
> Let’s remember that there’s always more to the story.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/as-my-daughter-knew-the-military-can-change-its-ways/article24213440/


----------



## The Bread Guy

I think most people in the military want it to work as effectively and fairly as possible, including when it comes to gender issues.  That said ....


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> .... we already have measures in place to cover "Workplace Harassment" and a resolution process under those rules to resolve issues, including the point that legal action could be instituted if an action or event were to be deemed illegal or criminal in nature.   We have Harassment Advisers, an investigative process, etc. already in place ....


.... like most rules, they don't come into place because of the ones who _have_ followed the process, but for those (likely few, but in some case egregious) instances where it was _not_ followed.


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> SHARP and Differential Training (Are you an "X" or a "Y"?) were just that: training.  Often dependent on who run the training as to how relevant the training was.  The Harassment Advisor Crse is a Qualification, which holds responsibilities.  Just a little bit different than annual DAG training.


Even if the training is first rate, it has to be _applied_, and/or _allowed_ to be applied.


----------



## OldSolduer

The NDA can be utilized can it not? Harassment is abuse and the NDA should be used IMO.


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> From the G&M, an article by the mother of Capt Nichola Goddard:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/as-my-daughter-knew-the-military-can-change-its-ways/article24213440/



A good read.

The end of the article:



> Let’s remember that there’s always more to the story.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Random thoughts on the issue  :2c:

The Canadian Forces needs a better plan than to give it's members a brief on something and then tell them, or order them, not to talk on social media about it.

The article doesn't address how prevalent false sexual harassment/assault claims are (or how damaging they can be).  We have a real problem with members who, if someone looks at them sideways, run and scream harassment- same boat as the people abusing the t-cat/chit system.

I'm not in an environment that has a lot of women but I've heard stories from friends (whom I trust) about stupid shit NCOs and Officers say and do to female soldiers to believe it's a problem.  There seems to be a lot of creepy dudes out there who aren't getting sorted out.

I'm not suggesting women should 'get tougher skin'.  There IS a pretty unique work place environment in the military, especially in the combat arms, when it comes down to the conversations the majority of members (men) have.  If you sat in a platoon room or company lines and charged everyone who made a comment that would be inappropriate in a civilian office place we could afford a fleet of new LAV6s, but we wouldn't have anyone to drive them.

I find the 'Harassment adviser' thing generally a joke and the running joke seems to be the unit harassment advisers are typically the worst offenders.  If I had an issue with harassment I would sooner come to army.ca than approach any self-identified harassment adviser. 

For serious macleans-level  cases of harassment or assault it seems like there's been a few instances where people have been harassed and it's been ignored or shot down by the various chain of command until the member is released and then after digging in and battling it out it finally comes to light the ex member was telling the truth after all. (where the CF hysterically offers the member a chance to go back to work). Anyone CoC guilty of that level of incompetence (and cover up) should have their career stop dropped and released.
Hell I think supervisors guilty of serious harassment (and obviously assault) should lose rank.

Lastly I'd say the current PER-promotion system causes members to be less inclined to report harassment or champion members who are harassed.


----------



## George Wallace

I must admit; the most foul-mouthed person I have ever met in the Army was a female trucker from 2 Svc Bn.   In many cases, it comes down to the sensibilities of the audience.  There are quite a few in the CAF, both male and female, whose tolerance to crude language is very low.   That demographic will wreck havoc in any organization.


----------



## cupper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are quite a few in the CAF, both male and female, whose tolerance to crude language is very low.   That demographic will wreck havoc in any organization.



It's one thing to be thin skinned because you don't like foul language. If you can't handle the odd F-bomb, S-bomb, A-hole then you need to deal with it. Sure, it shouldn't have a place in a professional setting, but there are cases where it has a larger impact in getting the point across than other less foul terms.

But it's more of the case where derogatory expressions meant to humiliate or embarrass that may be the larger issue here. it was and could still be a fairly common thing to refer to underperforming troops a colloquial term for a certain part of the female anatomy, or skirt wearing ladies (highlanders not withstanding). It's terms like that which undervalue females, and make for a difficult environment.

And it doesn't necessarily need to be foul language to be offensive. I have a senior manager / VP in my office that liked to introduce me to people as the resident "Frost-back". I've had to address this with him to point out that this is offensive on so many levels. The least of which is that it is unprofessional, and diminishes my status with people I need to work with. After a 20 minute discussion, he no longer introduces me that way to others, but still periodically calls me "frost-back" in the office. I'd push the point further, but it's not a battle worth fighting, so I just ignore it.


----------



## mariomike

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I must admit; the most foul-mouthed person I have ever met in the Army was a female trucker from 2 Svc Bn.   In many cases, it comes down to the sensibilities of the audience.  There are quite a few in the CAF, both male and female, whose tolerance to crude language is very low.   That demographic will wreck havoc in any organization.



Interesting article about language when transitioning out of the military:
http://www.highspeedlowdrag.org/6-bad-habits/


----------



## armyvern

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The NDA can be utilized can it not? Harassment is abuse and the NDA should be used IMO.



Yes, it can indeed be utilized -- and has been. You can find results in the Court Martial site.

See it?  Stop it.  Report it.  Deal with it -- officially; that's what good leaders do.

I certainly have dealt officially with those matters that have come to my attention ... and I can certify that my career has definitely *not* been negatively impacted.  It's rather the opposite in my case.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes, it can indeed be utilized -- and has been. You can find results in the Court Martial site.
> 
> See it?  Stop it.  Report it.  Deal with it -- officially; that's what good leaders do.
> 
> I certainly have dealt officially with those matters that have come to my attention ... and I can certify that my career has definitely *not* been negatively impacted.  It's rather the opposite in my case.



I whole heatedly agree.  

I have to say though things get muddied when CoCs choose not to use the directives at their disposal and instead choose to do PDR 5B's or "Talking too".  I have been part of organizations that choose not to follow the discipline/admin procedures as laid out for performance and conduct failures and they are sick and cancerous environments.

***Vern this is not reflective of my time under your leadership just so you know ***


----------



## Colin Parkinson

On a ship which had just recently gone mixed crews, a poster of Penthouse girl was on the wall, one of the female crew commented it was not what she needed to see. One of the guys said "Oh it just for fun and nice to look at" So she went out and got a poster of nude male model and put it beside the Penthouse one. Next day they were both gone and no more posters. The guys had a lot of respect for the way she dealt with it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nice way for her to handle it Colin.

However, IMO, it would have been even better if the seniors on that ship had toured it before the arrival of the first female crew and had such displays removed, and indicated to all what was expected of them. I served on the first commissioned ship that had mixed gender crew (not COR, but PD in 1981), and we certainly did that, plus everyone coming onboard got the brief:

(1) this is an order so get on with it and keep your personal opinion to yourself; (2) all seaman to be treated the same - you give female seamen the same job as male ones and expect the same standards; (3) any harassment or inappropriate behaviour WILL be dealt with IAW regulations and laws. (4) have a good day.

[ At this juncture, I will note that I was amazed to see Canada's first female jet jockey mentioning on The National that there were penthouse posters all over the briefing room when she started and she was told it was normal part of such rooms - Which brainless squadron commander failed to have those removed BEFORE she even showed up? I am totally baffled.]

There are no reason not to continue in that direction: We have orders, rules and regulations dealing with this and it's an obligation for the chain of command to use them every time they are applicable. When the CoC does, there are no later problems. It is nipped in the bud.

We have had problems in the Navy, long ago, with officers/CoC not obeying clear orders they "did not believe in" and it lead to mutinies.

Dixit Lawyer L.C. Audette, a member of the Mainguy Commission, in an article published in 1982:

_"On 28 July 1947, a year and a half before the mutinies. a message was issued from NSHQ to all ships ordering that "immediate steps" be taken to institute welfare committees  and ensure that all classes of ratings were represented on them. There was no possible trace of ambiguity or equivocation in the message.
        The executive officer in HMCS Magnificent was aware of this clear and unmistakable order, but because, in his own words, he "did not believe in the desirability" of welfare committees, there was no welfare committee in the ship. (…) In all three ships, the men were aware of their officers' disobedience of orders on this score and resented having no forum in which to plead. (…)
(…)
(…) What most surprised the three commissioners was the curious abandon with which the permanent force officer could disobey orders which he deemed undesirable, an unexpected characteristic which was displayed right to the very top. This attitude made some of the permanent officers fellow felons with the mutineers much more than either group realized, an aspect which never seems to have struck the insubordinate officers or the senior officers whose orders had been disobeyed."_

In short, when the CoC does not take certain matters seriously or dismiss them as inconsequential instead of dealing with the matter IAW regulations and this "dismissal" is known in the service, it creates the very climate where the bad apples can ripen.

I don't believe that the problem is as widespread as the report makes it sound like, but shutting problems down right from the go by using the applicable regulations would eliminate many of the recriminations noted in the report.


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes, it can indeed be utilized -- and has been. You can find results in the Court Martial site.
> 
> See it?  Stop it.  Report it.  Deal with it -- officially; that's what good leaders do.
> 
> I certainly have dealt officially with those matters that have come to my attention ... and I can certify that my career has definitely *not* been negatively impacted.  It's rather the opposite in my case.



Then in my tiny pee brain we don't need another layer of bureaucracy. Leaders need to step up and lead, and dispense discipline where it is needed.

One of our favourite "military experts" had an opinion piece in the Free Press this morning. I won't tell you who as I am sick of kittens dieing.....

I also have some thoughts on the report. Is interviews of 700 pers representative? Who was interviewed? Rank levels? Male or female? Army, RCN or RCAF? Trades?


----------



## kratz

My 9re was at the group interviews hosted in Borden. There were multiple groups at different rank levels. With her group there were no males present, but this does not mean men were not interviewed.


----------



## c_canuk

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Then in my tiny pee brain we don't need another layer of bureaucracy. Leaders need to step up and lead, and dispense discipline where it is needed.
> 
> One of our favourite "military experts" had an opinion piece in the Free Press this morning. I won't tell you who as I am sick of kittens dieing.....
> 
> I also have some thoughts on the report. Is interviews of 700 pers representative? Who was interviewed? Rank levels? Male or female? Army, RCN or RCAF? Trades?



Based what I read, I believe the recommendation is not to add another layer, but to take all the existing layers and put it in one silo that is accessable separate from the CoC.  The same sort of idea as SISIP, Medical, Dental, Supply etc. If you need the services of the dept on the individual level, you make contact with them. 

I think the idea is that CoC approval is not required, excepting authorization to go if an email won't suffice.

That sort of setup would remove a large portion of the indicated problems created by having one's superiors investigate claims of misconduct without biases, perceived or factual, that will arise from the fact that they are your superiors.

To clarify the idea; if an external entity investigates and claims there is no basis for a complaint, then it's more likely to be taken seriously than if it was the member's own CoC that determined that there was no basis for the complainant's claim of a superior's misconduct.

It also removes the suggestion that later negative consequences of reporting misconduct, perceived or otherwise, is at play since the investigators and people holding the data are external to the CoC.

Obviously that's not a 100% solution, but those don't exist in the real world. I can see how in this case, creating a central authority (not just another layer) will improve things.


----------



## GAP

This whole discussion is fertile ground for the Teamsters, et al, to run a membership drive.......

Classic situation for a union to form...... :2c:


----------



## cupper

GAP said:
			
		

> This whole discussion is fertile ground for the Teamsters, et al, to run a membership drive.......
> 
> Classic situation for a union to form...... :2c:



Which will inevitably lead to the Good Idea Fairies issuing a new Union Label insignia which all members will have to sew onto their uniforms. >


----------



## Tibbson

As long as they are not made in China.


----------



## Edward Campbell

:soapbox:

<rant>

Let's admit first that there is a problem: some people _never_ get the memo; they think that they're above the rules; they think it's OK to abuse others; we, 95+% of us, anyway, don't agree, but we're rarely alert enough or strong enough or anything enough to prevent abuse, and we expect our institutions to sort it out. One of our institutions is the military chain of command; our chain of command is,  by and large, full of good, earnest, hard working, honest people - from leading seaman all the way up to LGen Vance and the Governor General ~ by and large is a95+%, I think. The chain of command is imperfect; it has been since the bloody Greeks were forming up in phalanxes; it makes mistakes; sometimes, as OGBD explained the wrong people are the wrong _links_ of the chain. The same applies in police forces; airlines; giant corporations and corner stores: mostly, most of time, most of us do the right thing in the right way but for some small ~ but still painfully large, painful especially for those who are abused ~  percentage of the time we get it wrong.

But the problem is that when we get things wrong we look for easy solutions; we look to "pass the buck," and so we create ombudsmen and public complaints commissions and civilian review boards and consumer advocates, and, and, and ... seemingly _ad infinitum_. Every time we do that we excuse the failings of the chain of command or the management team or the leadership or whatever, and we ask outsiders to protect us from ourselves, because we recognize that we are weak and imperfect and we don't want to be stronger because that's bloody hard.

I don't have any answers ... but I _hate_ things like ombudsmen and complaints commissions and review boards because they tell me that we have given up trying to bet better, to fix ourselves.

</rant>


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ombudsmen



Must drink more tea before I respond......hehehe
Lets just say if you think some organizations in the military are self-licking ice cream cones.......


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Every time we do that we excuse the failings of the chain of command or the management team or the leadership or whatever, and we ask outsiders to protect us from ourselves, because we recognize that we are weak and imperfect and *we don't want to be stronger because that's bloody hard*.


Big part of the problem, indeed.  To be more specific, if more leaders _consistently_ applied the rules/systems that are currently in place, even if it's hard to do, you don't get outsiders making new rules up.  Such rules don't get put into place because of the 99.9% of those wanting to do the job right.  They get into place because some may not want to make the hard decision (or aren't supported in doing so).

All all fairness, though, the CF isn't the ONLY big group of people who struggle with bosses/leaders/managers being reluctant to have "hard" conversations and perservere and be consistent in their handling of problem employees.


----------



## cupper

Was talking with a friend of mine over the past weekend, and he had read the report, and was also in on one of the town halls, and filled out the questionaire that circulated.

He felt that perhaps Justice Deschamps may well have had a preconceived outcome going into the mandate, and most of the questions and interviews were gear to deliver the outcome she was looking for.

Anyone else have that same experience?


----------



## George Wallace

cupper said:
			
		

> Was talking with a friend of mine over the past weekend, and he had read the report, and was also in on one of the town halls, and filled out the questionaire that circulated.
> 
> He felt that perhaps Justice Deschamps may well have had a preconceived outcome going into the mandate, and most of the questions and interviews were gear to deliver the outcome she was looking for.
> 
> Anyone else have that same experience?



Well....Some feel that she just plagiarized the MacLeans articles.  Her report reads to me like that of someone with an agenda.  

Yes, we can all agree that there are things wrong with the system.  We have 'growing pains' in the integration of women into previously male dominated fields of the military.  At the same time, little is being said of the women who have used and abused the current system to exact revenge on males, or attain promotion.   Could those figures match the figures toted out to back up statistics on sexual misconduct?  There is more to this story than just "evil men assaulting females".   

In fact, there have been cases where the system has promoted women, in a PC manner, well before they have been ready.  In some cases this has led to PTSD and even suicide by the female member.....but that is another matter altogether.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

This article was the hot topic around Shilo/1 RCHA today....

Outside of the article, I can honestly say that this is about the most disappointed I've been with military leadership. Not one of our Sr Officers (male or female) that I've seen has stepped forward to defend the institution or the individuals within it. Reading statements such as, "Officers tend to excuse incidents of inappropriate conduct on the basis that the CAF is merely a reflection of civilian society. There is also a strong perception that senior NCOs are responsible for imposing a culture where no one speaks up and which functions to deter victims from reporting sexual misconduct" is disheartening to say the least. 

http://aptn.ca/news/2015/05/02/inuk-soldier-wanted-die-decade-racism-sexual-harassment-broke/


----------



## Tibbson

All of the Snr NCOs in the NCR were required to attend the Mess a few days before the report came out and we were told in no uncertain terms that we were part of the problem and needed to step up and be part of the solution.  Now, I have no doubt that there is an issue however I don't believe it is anywhere near what it is portrayed in this report and I'm getting a little tired of the generalities being used to paint us all with the same brush.  I've read the report and it's obvious that Justice Deschampes both strayed from her lanes and has made some pretty broad and inflammatory accusations.  Anyone who has read the report with an open mind sees it very clearly, unfortunately the average citizen gets their news and their opinions from sound bites from a media looking to sell papers.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> All of the Snr NCOs in the NCR were required to attend the Mess a few days before the report came out and we were told in no uncertain terms that we were part of the problem and needed to step up and be part of the solution.  Now, I have no doubt that there is an issue however I don't believe it is anywhere near what it is portrayed in this report and I'm getting a little tired of the generalities being used to paint us all with the same brush.  I've read the report and it's obvious that Justice Deschampes both strayed from her lanes and has made some pretty broad and inflammatory accusations.  Anyone who has read the report with an open mind sees it very clearly, unfortunately the average citizen gets their news and their opinions from sound bites from a media looking to sell papers.



MPs are pretty roundly torn down in the report. What are your thoughts on that from a MP perspective?


----------



## George Wallace

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> All of the Snr NCOs in the NCR were required to attend the Mess a few days before the report came out and we were told in no uncertain terms that we were part of the problem and needed to step up and be part of the solution.  Now, I have no doubt that there is an issue however I don't believe it is anywhere near what it is portrayed in this report and I'm getting a little tired of the generalities being used to paint us all with the same brush.  I've read the report and it's obvious that Justice Deschampes both strayed from her lanes and has made some pretty broad and inflammatory accusations.  Anyone who has read the report with an open mind sees it very clearly, unfortunately the average citizen gets their news and their opinions from sound bites from a media looking to sell papers.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Brad Sallows

How does the mantra go? "Know the standard, follow the standard, teach the standard, enforce the standard"?

The "standard" already exists.  If it is complex to know, follow, teach, and enforce because of all the bits and pieces grafted on as panicked responses, more bits and pieces grafted on will not serve.  [Add:]The more you graft on, the more opportunities you create for barrack lawyers and other administrative burdens.

Lead, and use common sense.

"****", and other colorful metaphors, are just part of the language.  Fragile people need to get over it or seek employment in academia.

Everyone who is not "part of the problem" should explain clearly, tactfully, and forcefully to the dipshit who uttered the phrase why it is not so, and encourage him to stick to facts.


----------



## Tibbson

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> MPs are pretty roundly torn down in the report. What are your thoughts on that from a MP perspective?



To be perfectly honest with you I can see some of the points being made.  Not in regards to the training investigators have because besides training at our Academy there are also many of us who have done courses at the Ontario Police College, Atlantic Police College and other civilian police training centers and in many ways there are plenty of MPs with more advanced training the many civilian cops.  On my SA invest course there was a Toronto cop on the same course who had been working in their sex crimes unit for 7 years without any specialized training.  That is unacceptable in my books and it is one of the reasons we have a training matrix which dictates the level of training required by our investigators.

The issues I agree with though are ones caused by the actual restrictions the NDA places on the investigations and charging process.  Under the NDA all CFNIS investigators who investigate sexual assault complaints have the ability to independently investigate and, where grounds exist, lay a charge in either the civilian courts or under the NDA.  If there is any attempts by the CoC to interfere with an investigation the MP has the ability to lodge an interference complaint with the MPCC (and if you check their case log on their website you'll see it's been done before).  Once the NIS lays a charge though, from that point the relevant legal system takes over and the matter gets dealt with and the CoC has no influence.  Even within the military justice system our military lawyers and judges are bound by the rule of law and the code of conduct of their Bar Association to act impartially and in the interests of justice.

For those lesser complaints though, ones where the base MPs conduct the investigation, I don't like the process they are limited to where they conduct the investigation and must refer the matter back to the CoC for any charge action.  The base MP doesn't have the authority/ability to exercise their discretion and lay a charge under the NDA like their NIS counterparts can.  Furthermore, their ability to lay a charge under the Criminal Code for the same incident is also restricted unless the unless the military justice system waves prosecutorial jurisdiction.  Under the current system the CO gets all of the information and after reviewing it he/she makes a decision to proceed with a charge or not.  Oh sure, they need to justify their decision but if they don't view the matter as serious enough or they wanted to make it go away they can always find a way.  There is also the potential for the complainant to be viewed as a troublemaker if the CoC is so inclined, regardless of how wrong that is.  Even if the matter is dealt with effectively though, and many are, the complainant/victim still goes into the process with the knowledge that their CoC is going to have all the details and control all the cards in how the matter is disposed of.

Regardless of what the report states, I have every confidence in the abilities of MPs to investigate sexual assault complaints.  If, God forbid, my daughter was a victim of an SA on base and one of the MPs showed up at my door to investigate it I'd be quite comfortable.  Personally though, I'd take away the potential for interference by the CoC and allow all MPs to lay charges under the NDA when reasonable and probable grounds exist, just like they can under the Criminal Code.


----------



## garb811

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> MPs are pretty roundly torn down in the report. What are your thoughts on that from a MP perspective?


I know you're asking SL but I will chime in from my perspective:

As others have pointed out, this is a self selected group who had very specific instances they wished to convey to the Justice.  I doubt there were very many members who had been sexually assaulted who came forward expressing they were fully satisfied with their treatment at the hands of the Military Justice system. 

This quote speaks volumes:  





> One interviewee, referring to procedural problems in the investigation which could potentially be relied upon to undermine a prosecution and secure an acquittal, commented: “Defence attorneys love [CFNIS investigations] because there are always issues”.


 One person says something so it is treated as fact and used to damn us all.  Reading that, and considering the Military Justice system does not prosecute cases investigated by civilian police, and I can't see the retired Justice interviewing civilian defence attorneys in relation to cases tried in Criminal Court as that wasn't her mandate, the likely source of the comment is obvious, and biased.



> The ERA recognizes that, in Canada, one of the challenges the CAF faces is the wide diversity of resources available within civilian society, given that some CAF members work in more remote areas of the country and may not have access to the same resources as in the big urban centers. The ERA cannot, therefore, simply recommend that the CAF divest itself of all responsibility for cases of sexual assault, given that not all civilian authorities will themselves have more appropriate resources to tackle such problems than the military. The CAF operates training facilities, offers services for victim support, and has developed a full range of services in its military justice system, complete with disciplinary and administrative measures. The CAF therefore has the human and physical resources which, when properly marshalled, could benefit victims of sexual assault.


Now I'm confused.  We're not capable of investigating sexual assaults, but sometimes we are.  Herein lies the rub.  We are accused of being incapable of investigating sexual assaults due to the number of sexual assaults we investigate so we need to refer them to civilians.  Except in some places.  Then we are supposed to take our investigators who now have even less opportunity to gain experience in investigating sexual assaults and have them investigate the sexual assaults where civilian police lack that experience as well??

Reality is, MP are an easy target when you want bang for the buck right now, as proven by Stannard with his press conference announcing his findings from the Fynes public interest hearings.  Nobody speaks about how gun shy certain RMP are; those who will refuse to take a case to trial unless every conceivable eventuality has been covered and accounted for.  How it is that cases which are prescreened by a RMP or JAG before charges are laid, or recommended, suddenly are quietly dropped when the work on behalf of the RMP has to actually start.  Nobody speaks about the difficulty of investigating what, on many cases, are "he said, she saids" - like it or not, "date rape" usually devolves to this.  It quite often comes down to two people (quite often with both having at least some amount of alcohol in their system) telling two very different stories about what actually occurred and in cases like this, the tie will generally go to the accused give that whole burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt thing and charges will not likely be laid on the advice of RMP...thus proving yet again the ineptness of CFNIS.  Nobody talks about the RMP who quite probably have prosecuted or defended even fewer Sexual Assaults than the MP investigator has investigated who make mistakes at trial by failing to introduce evidence, adequately examine or cross examine witnesses.  Nobody talks about Court Martial decisions that seem to run counter to the evidence presented and heard...and nobody will even comment on the abilities of Military Judges who have little, or no, experience with presiding over Sexual Assault cases rendering those decisions.  

Nobody is talking about the success rates of civilian police who are held up as the paragons of all that is done right and why it is the rate of reporting in the civilian world is just as low, if not lower, as it apparently is in the CAF?

Yep, MP make mistakes but it is hardly fair to lay the entire failings of the system at our feet but it is oh so convenient to do so.

Finally, the retired Justice certainly doesn't give mention to the number of Sexual Assault cases which have been fully and successfully prosecuted as a result of MP investigations.  Is this because it runs counter to the narrative she wishes to weave or a case of no "satisfied" clients seeing the need to beat their drum of contentment and she never thought to pull those stats?

Now, a few general observations:

Yes, we have a problem.  After the initial over reaction in the mid-90's, I thought we had settled into a fairly sane place by about 2000 where the issue was treated with seriousness and I saw the Units I served in became very respectful.  I believe we have regressed to a point which allows harassment to occur without fear of repercussion at some times and in some places, yet in most others, people "get it" and are behaving properly.

I truly believe the retired Justice is out of touch with what the youth of today are like.  The civilian youth culture is sexualized, not just males.  Some females, just like some males, show up at St Jean with a distorted sense of what is appropriate.  The worst case of serial sexual harassment (and truth be told at least one case of sexual assault with witnesses) I have been privy to in my career was perpetrated by a female on numerous males and in speaking with those who have known her throughout her career, she showed up at basic training with that flaw and the system allowed her to carry on and flourish due to the reticence of her chain of commands to take action against her for fear of what it would look like with them holding a female harasser to account.  It was only when she (a PO2 at the time) met her match in a LS who refused to let the issue "go away", that she was eventually held to task, albeit not to the full extent that she should have been given the rank disparity.  And today, several years on, she had the audacity to post this very article in a MP Facebook group and state that she had been witness to several terrible examples of sexual harassment in her time in and was appalled by it and the fact nothing was done... 

The idea that rank differences alone makes a relationship unequal due to the power dynamics differing ranks bring is ludicrous.  I'm sure in her mind the senior ranking member is always a male...which we all know is untrue.

I find it interesting that she takes a shot at anyone and everyone with the exception of two groups in her report. MP - fail.  Chain of Command (male and female) - fail.  Padres - fail.  Ombudsman (who she was miffed wouldn't meet with her) - fail.  Doctors - fail.  Victim Services - fail.  Social workers and Nurses - pass (but they are failed by the system)  Interesting, considering the demographics of those professions.

The Dispute Resolution Centers don't even gain a mention yet in my experience, they are an invaluable resource for anyone who ends up involved in a harassment case whether as a Supervisor, complainant or respondent.  I am actually quite shocked that it appears that she didn't even look at these, or if she did, she couldn't bring herself to mention them as a "best practice" because that might mean we have something going right.  This is the building block upon which to build her vaunted...whatever acronym she made up for what she wants to have put in place.

Her disdain about lowest level resolution doesn't make sense.  Yes, there are times when it can't work, or the victim shouldn't even be encouraged to try due to the dynamics involved but in my experience, most "issues" can be sorted out by someone actually standing up for them self and calling the perpetrator out on their own.  I wonder if this is a case of WRAs/HAs treating the checklist as a "must do" as opposed to "should do"?  But we're all adults here, we can't be running to mom and dad to solve our problems every time someone says something that we don't like or which hurts our feelings.

One thing I would like to see implemented is what I see in some jurisdictions, and that is the ability of the victim of a Sexual Assault to have the investigative process stopped after the initial collection of forensic evidence.  In our system, once someone in authority has the complaint, the victim loses a say in what is going to happen, I sincerely think this adversely affects victims coming forward.  I would like to see the victim have the ability to have the time sensitive material collected and then be given time to think about whether or not they wish to proceed with a full investigation, with all that entails.  I suspect this is the gist of what she is trying to say by recommending an "outside agency" that people can go to for support and advice.

And...the elephant in the room.  I don't think the retired Justice is ready for the actual outcome of a more diligent system.  In order for any system to be fair, it has to be equal.  As I illustrated above, my sense right now there is a huge impediment to holding female harassers to account for their actions and I expect...well...perhaps hope is a better emotion, that this will disappear.  It has to, there is no room for double standards if we truly wish to have a harassment free CAF and that means some females are going to find out that what they have been doing is not acceptable anymore either.

SL:  COs do not have to justify their decision to proceed with a charge recommended by non-CFNIS MP or not, unless there is perhaps a query from higher up their chain of command.  There isn't even a legal obligation on COs currently to inform non-CFNIS MP on their decision to proceed with charges or not, and if a Summary Trial is held, to inform the Guardhouse of the outcome.  On numerous occasions I tried to push back to JAG when I was finally able to figure out the CoC was not proceeding with a charge and they refused to intervene or even ask for an explanation in case there was a lesson to be learned WRT the invest.


----------



## Tibbson

garb811 said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that she takes a shot at anyone and everyone with the exception of two groups in her report. MP - fail.  Chain of Command (male and female) - fail.  Padres - fail.  Ombudsman (who she was miffed wouldn't meet with her) - fail.  Doctors - fail.  Victim Services - fail.  Social workers and Nurses - pass (but they are failed by the system)  Interesting, considering the demographics of those professions.



Further to this, I find it interesting how she views Padres and Doctors as a fail, given how they are governed by different professional standards and, in the case of our Doctors, many times civilian or working at civilian medical facilities.  And her complaints about Victim Services are just as baseless considering we have no victim services of our own and all are referred to outside agencies that exist specifically to deal with SA and SH issues.  



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> One thing I would like to see implemented is what I see in some jurisdictions, and that is the ability of the victim of a Sexual Assault to have the investigative process stopped after the initial collection of forensic evidence.  In our system, once someone in authority has the complaint, the victim loses a say in what is going to happen, I sincerely think this adversely affects victims coming forward.  I would like to see the victim have the ability to have the time sensitive material collected and then be given time to think about whether or not they wish to proceed with a full investigation, with all that entails.  I suspect this is the gist of what she is trying to say by recommending an "outside agency" that people can go to for support and advice.



This ability already exists.  I've had extensive experience with complaints where the victim does not wish to proceed.  At one time we would actually go through and gather the evidence we could and try to get possession of the SA kit from the hospital (if the victim would allow us to have it) and we would tell them that if they didn't wish to proceed at that time they could always change their mind later and we'd have retained what evidence we could gather.  Now, owing to case law, we tell them that if they choose not to make a complaint they will not be able to do so in the future.  



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> SL:  COs do not have to justify their decision to proceed with a charge recommended by non-CFNIS MP or not, unless there is perhaps a query from higher up their chain of command.  There isn't even a legal obligation on COs currently to inform non-CFNIS MP on their decision to proceed with charges or not, and if a Summary Trial is held, to inform the Guardhouse of the outcome.  On numerous occasions I tried to push back to JAG when I was finally able to figure out the CoC was not proceeding with a charge and they refused to intervene or even ask for an explanation in case there was a lesson to be learned WRT the invest.



Actually, COs do have to report their reasons for not proceeding with a charge where it's warranted.  They report it to DMP and as far as them reporting back to the MP/CFNIS offices, I don't really care as long as its tracked by DMP.  I also don't really care if they report back to the MP with the outcome of any Summary Trial since none of that info goes on CPIC and it doesn't really matter if the MPs are informed or not....other then out of curiosity for the MP involved in the file.  Pressing the JAG for resolution or lessons learned is a waste of effort since they are the legal advisor to the CoC and as such he/she provides the advice to the CO who decided not to proceed.  The RMP, through DMP, is the one who prosecutes once it is determined a CM is warranted and it's DMP that the COs must report their decisions to proceed or not.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Gents- two really good posts. I have learned a great deal.


----------



## OldSolduer

Tomorrow evening I'm going to discuss this with my troops. Readers Digest version is that NCOs will be expected to enforce the rules, and troops are expected to follow the rules. I expect my troops to also take care of each other - if you see someone going astray, lead them back to the path. If they fail to follow, report them to the CoC.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

SL and Garb- Great points, I have learned a lot about the issues MPs face when dealing with these issues. Thanks!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> SL and Garb- Great points, I have learned a lot about the issues MPs face when dealing with these issues. Thanks!



Yes, first class  

The phrase "Methinks (she) doth protest too much' comes to mind in connection with this particular report.


----------



## garb811

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> This ability already exists.  I've had extensive experience with complaints where the victim does not wish to proceed.  At one time we would actually go through and gather the evidence we could and try to get possession of the SA kit from the hospital (if the victim would allow us to have it) and we would tell them that if they didn't wish to proceed at that time they could always change their mind later and we'd have retained what evidence we could gather.  Now, owing to case law, we tell them that if they choose not to make a complaint they will not be able to do so in the future.


I mean them having the ability to make a complaint in the future.  Given the turmoil that is already going on with all that SA entails, nobody should be forced to make a "do it now or never" decision, particularly in the case of a date/spousal SA.  I'd be interested in the case law you're citing here, for PD purposes, have the citation handy?



> Actually, COs do have to report their reasons for not proceeding with a charge where it's warranted.  They report it to DMP and as far as them reporting back to the MP/CFNIS offices, I don't really care as long as its tracked by DMP.  I also don't really care if they report back to the MP with the outcome of any Summary Trial since none of that info goes on CPIC and it doesn't really matter if the MPs are informed or not....other then out of curiosity for the MP involved in the file.  Pressing the JAG for resolution or lessons learned is a waste of effort since they are the legal advisor to the CoC and as such he/she provides the advice to the CO who decided not to proceed.  The RMP, through DMP, is the one who prosecutes once it is determined a CM is warranted and it's DMP that the COs must report their decisions to proceed or not.


You're mixing apples and crab apples, take off your CFNIS goggles.   ;D

Not all SA are investigated by CFNIS anymore, so called "low level" SAs are routinely referred back to the Guardhouses, particularly in places that have a dedicated GIS.  In those instances, the charge laying authority IS the CO and they are not compelled to justify their decision to anyone.  Further, Guardhouses are routinely recommending other charges that could...should...end up with the member being charged by the CO and the charges either going to CM via the member electing to go that route or by the CO directly referring the charges.  There is no provision for any sort of review by anyone as to the CO's decision to lay that charge or not.  HUGE flaw in the system that you, yourself, have acknowledged in a previous post.

Ref your comment about you not really caring if MP learn about the outcome of summary trials or not, is a pretty asinine statement from a Snr MP.  We have a computerized database in which we are routinely identifying persons as "subject", "suspect" and "charged/accused".  If we are a professional police service we should be very aware of the need to maintain the accuracy of our database, if for no other reason than when we do it for our own investigative purposes or get a local indices check from another police agency we are able to state the actual outcome for all of those people we are classifying as "charged/accused".  Right now they end up in limbo with no way for the Guardhouses to actually track them.  I'm pretty sure civilian police services are able to tell you the outcome of their summary offence files via a query of their local indices, even though they haven't been entered on CPIC.  That's the whole point of doing local indices checks as part of the overall criminal record checks as I learned back in my polyester suited SIU days, all kinds of relevant information is held at the local level that never makes it to CPIC, but it needs to be accurate to be useful, and we are failing at that, badly.


----------



## garb811

And one other general comment.  I'm shocked at the quality of that report, just in overall terms.  For a retired Supreme Court justice to produce that and give it such emphasis, I am very disappointed.  I highly doubt if a lawyer had produced a document such as that and tried to introduce it as "evidence" to her while she was sitting on the bench, she would have run him out of the court.  A good example is her footnotes.  Yes, I get the requirement to keep people anonymous but there also needs to be a way to tell who, specifically, is being referenced when she is providing quotes and examples.  The way that report is written it is impossible to tell, and she actually admits to drawing an inference when stating something as fact.  From a page where MP are discussed:



> 303 Focus groups: female lower rank, female reserve; Coordinator interviews; Volunteer contributions
> 304 The ERA here draws an inference from participant comments, previously referred to, concerning the need to create an outside mechanism to receive complaints of sexual harassment and assault.
> 305 Volunteer contributions
> 306 Volunteer contributions
> 307 Focus group: female reserve; Volunteer contribution
> 308 Coordinator interview; Volunteer contributions
> 309 Volunteer contribution
> 310 Coordinator interviews
> 311 Coordinator interview
> 312 Focus group: female lower rank; Coordinator interview; Volunteer contributions
> 313 Coordinator interviews; Volunteer contributions
> 314 Coordinator interview; Volunteer contribution



:facepalm:


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Where I am, the junior ranks received it to read and sign off that we have read it. 

 It was reinforced by our chain that it will not be tolerated and that everyone had a responsibility to report any abuse, etc.

For the most part it was met (both male and female alike) with indifference or mild humour.

While trying to explain the brief to a subordinate, he interrupted me with this summation: "so, don't be a douchecreeper, stop other guys from being a douchecreeper, and report it to the MPs if someone is being a douchecreeper. How is this any different than before?"

I had to sort of shrug and say that it has failed a few times in the past and now we just need a refresher, like with TOETs.  

I hope to see this as a refresher and a shake out of existing policies than to see the wheel reinvented too far. If there is a better way to deal with the problem then by all means lets implement it. However, I hope this doesn't create another layer of bureacracy that will hinder and not help the situation.


----------



## cupper

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> How does the mantra go? "Know the standard, follow the standard, teach the standard, enforce the standard"?
> 
> The "standard" already exists.  If it is complex to know, follow, teach, and enforce because of all the bits and pieces grafted on as panicked responses, more bits and pieces grafted on will not serve.  [Add:]The more you graft on, the more opportunities you create for barrack lawyers and other administrative burdens.



I agree. As I stated earlier, the policies are all in place. All that really needs to be done is to consolidate into one easily accessed document that allows any party to go and find the policy, its application and so forth. The individual policy pieces (NDA, CCC, QR & O's etc) can then referenced as necessary should more detailed information be required.


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> I agree. As I stated earlier, the policies are all in place. All that really needs to be done is to consolidate into one easily accessed document that allows any party to go and find the policy, its application and so forth. The individual policy pieces (NDA, CCC, QR & O's etc) can then referenced as necessary should more detailed information be required.



DAOD 5019-5 should be utilized when necessary. It's quite comprehensive.


----------



## c_canuk

I think that the problem is mainly optics.

No matter how well the system works, there will always be someone who feels it has failed them. Sometimes it will be perception, sometimes it will be fact. 

We can strive to enforce the rules better and yes our leaders are capable of enforcing the standards, however, there will always be a small number of dissatisfied people regardless of real effectiveness. 

This seems to be a case of law of diminishing returns when the optics demands 100% success.

No where in the report, that I recall, did it compare us to the general population or a selection of the general population adjusted to match our demographics. I think we can all draw conclusions as to why.

When we are viewed from outside the organization in reference to the dissatisfied, the system will still be seen as providing opportunities for the CoC to cover up. Regardless of our leader's impeccable honour and diligence. Regardless of our effectiveness. Regardless of what actually happened.

The system appears to outsiders, to be formed in a way that makes it possible for one of less honour and diligence to affect the outcome and/or punish those that stand up and make a complaint. 

I feel that in the minds of some of those looking in, pointing fingers, and stirring up controversy; honour and diligence are meaningless blandishments. I feel that to them those words hold no substance.

By removing the current system and creating one separate from the CoC, we can potentially remove those optics from the situation and get on with our primary roles, having removed a point of criticism.

Or we can keep doing things the way we have, striving to improve upon the intangibles of the current, and have one of these reports slamming us every couple of years because someone somewhere feels the system wronged them.

Maybe the question comes down to do we care more about how effective we are, or the optics?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Big part of the problem, indeed.  To be more specific, if more ALL leaders _consistently_ applied the rules/systems that are currently in place, even if it's hard to do, you don't get outsiders making new rules up.  Such rules don't get put into place because of the 99.9% of those wanting to do the job right.  They get into place because some may not want to make the hard decision (or aren't supported in doing so).
> 
> All all fairness, though, the CF isn't the ONLY big group of people who struggle with bosses/leaders/managers being reluctant to have "hard" conversations and perservere and be consistent in their handling of problem employees.



FTFY.

We also have tools to deal with problem leaders.  RMs, ARs, release items etc.

So use them.  I have at my level.   :2c:


----------



## exgunnertdo

Sadly, there is still a culture that prevents people from reporting, or saying or doing something if they see something. Because of this report, people are talking. Last week I heard of two separate incidents. One, in which people didn't speak up because they feared it would hurt their careers (Class B contracts being cancelled, and/or PERs being lowered). I can't say that they would have been wrong, knowing the individual involved. Sometimes personal survival (keeping your job) is more important than making the system better.

Another situation, something extremely degrading in general (not against one specific person, but of a similar concept to pinups hanging in the office - something around, but not directed at anyone in particular, some women might have thought it was funny, but it really was not), and 100 or more people did/said nothing. 

I've always thought that I'd be strong enough to say something. I have had to call a few people on minor things here and there, thankfully I'm in the category of people that doesn't fully believe this report could be true. But I guess I was wrong - hearing some of the stories I've heard in the past few days, there is still a problem with people not being able to speak up. Policies are there. But if you're still afraid of losing a job, or not being promoted, the policy doesn't help you a whole lot. 

It's really easy to say that we have the policies, but when women who I consider to be strong felt powerless to report someone who is supposed to be one of the ones applying the rules, I don't think we've finished. We talk like the leaders all know what is right. They don't.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good post exgunner.

The people of Canada who decide to join the CAF do not do so to be abused, sexually or otherwise. They are someone's son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandchild and in some cases moms and dads.

This is not a subject I want to speak of tonight at dismissal parade...but it has to be said and people need to get the message at all rank levels.


----------



## daftandbarmy

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> Sadly, there is still a culture that prevents people from reporting, or saying or doing something if they see something. Because of this report, people are talking. Last week I heard of two separate incidents. One, in which people didn't speak up because they feared it would hurt their careers (Class B contracts being cancelled, and/or PERs being lowered). I can't say that they would have been wrong, knowing the individual involved. Sometimes personal survival (keeping your job) is more important than making the system better.
> 
> Another situation, something extremely degrading in general (not against one specific person, but of a similar concept to pinups hanging in the office - something around, but not directed at anyone in particular, some women might have thought it was funny, but it really was not), and 100 or more people did/said nothing.
> 
> I've always thought that I'd be strong enough to say something. I have had to call a few people on minor things here and there, thankfully I'm in the category of people that doesn't fully believe this report could be true. But I guess I was wrong - hearing some of the stories I've heard in the past few days, there is still a problem with people not being able to speak up. Policies are there. But if you're still afraid of losing a job, or not being promoted, the policy doesn't help you a whole lot.
> 
> It's really easy to say that we have the policies, but when women who I consider to be strong felt powerless to report someone who is supposed to be one of the ones applying the rules, I don't think we've finished. We talk like the leaders all know what is right. They don't.



This reticence to speak out applies to other kinds of abuse/ bullying too, and is a common feature (sadly) of many large, hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations. We've all seen/ experienced it at one time or another, and it's not always a 'sexual misconduct' issue.

As a result, to deal with this reality in a proactive manner, many business run ongoing audits based on confidential interviews between randomly selected staff and objective 3rd parties to surface issues, and then conduct further investigations and deal with them as required.

In the 'olden days', in the military, this used to be the Padre net - amongst others...


----------



## Tibbson

garb811 said:
			
		

> I mean them having the ability to make a complaint in the future.  Given the turmoil that is already going on with all that SA entails, nobody should be forced to make a "do it now or never" decision, particularly in the case of a date/spousal SA.  I'd be interested in the case law you're citing here, for PD purposes, have the citation handy?



I don't have it at hand but I will certainly dig it up.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Not all SA are investigated by CFNIS anymore, so called "low level" SAs are routinely referred back to the Guardhouses, particularly in places that have a dedicated GIS.  In those instances, the charge laying authority IS the CO and they are not compelled to justify their decision to anyone.



Thats been a big complaint of mine for some time.  The CFNIS mandate clearly states they are responsible for all SA investigations and that has never changed.  What had changed was the internal policy to refer the low level cases back to a guardhouse.  I won't comment on why that was done but I've never agreed with it.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Ref your comment about you not really caring if MP learn about the outcome of summary trials or not, is a pretty asinine statement from a Snr MP.  We have a computerized database in which we are routinely identifying persons as "subject", "suspect" and "charged/accused".  If we are a professional police service we should be very aware of the need to maintain the accuracy of our database, if for no other reason than when we do it for our own investigative purposes or get a local indices check from another police agency we are able to state the actual outcome for all of those people we are classifying as "charged/accused".  Right now they end up in limbo with no way for the Guardhouses to actually track them.



Considering that summary trial offences are essentially on par with simple tickets in the civilian system, and they don't get listed on CPIC, I don't really think it matters if they are tracked in SAMPIS.  If its elevated to a CM proceedings then thats a bit different.  Add to that the fact the new document retention policy is going to see SAMPIS info purged after 7 years (most civilian police departments don't have the capabiity or the desire to store such info indefinitely) I see even less of a reason to track the outcome of summary offence matters.  The CF has conduct sheets for that and all the front line MP needs to know is that Bloggins was the subject of some summary offence incident so they know what they may be dealing with during any subsequent calls.  As far as what info DOES make it to CPIC, that is something we have no control over and it's dictated by the RCMPs CPIC policies.  Up until the last major round of NDA revisions not even our CM convictions were listed on CPIC but thankfully thats changed.


----------



## Robert0288

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> All all fairness, though, the CF isn't the ONLY big group of people who struggle with bosses/leaders/managers being reluctant to have "hard" conversations and perservere and be consistent in their handling of problem employees.



Yep.


----------



## OldSolduer

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> All all fairness, though, the CF isn't the ONLY big group of people who struggle with bosses/leaders/managers being reluctant to have "hard" conversations and perservere and be consistent in their handling of problem employees.



Correct. BUT - the CAF is a high visibility organization funded by taxpayer dollars.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> milnews.ca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big part of the problem, indeed.  To be more specific, if more ALL leaders _consistently_ applied the rules/systems that are currently in place, even if it's hard to do, you don't get outsiders making new rules up.
> 
> 
> 
> FTFY.
Click to expand...

Good point.



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Correct. BUT - the CAF is a high visibility organization funded by taxpayer dollars.


100% agreed, especially in being held to a higher standard (like cops, for example).  I was just trying to make the point that the CF isn't the only (not just government) organization where some leaders/managers don't seem to want to do the hard, but right thing.


----------



## OldSolduer

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FTFY.
> Good point.
> 100% agreed, especially in being held to a higher standard (like cops, for example).  I was just trying to make the point that the CF isn't the only (not just government) organization where some leaders/managers don't seem to want to do the hard, but right thing.


Understood.


----------



## OldSolduer

I've read about half the report and it does not flatter us. It particularly, at some points, singles out the NCO corps as being a huge part of the problem. It does not excuse the officers either. 

If the general public were to read it, they may come away with the impression we are half wit sexual predators.


----------



## Alberta Bound

Just remember that when / if you get to having an outside / independent organization investigating these issues that criticism of the CF won't suddenly disappear. What you will also see is the same persons / groups who criticize now will continue to do so. It just gives them two or more groups to be mad at. 

The RCMP used to do their own internal investigations. Now the bigger, more public ones have been taken over by the Public Complaints Commission and Provincial Agencies. Now we have more groups involved with multiple overlapping investigations and slightly different rules. 

I found that in the old days the RCMP in most cases went after their membership very hard in some cases for public image. Now the independent groups don't do this and do their investigations just like any other investigative body which is nice. 

But our chronic clients say that ASIRT (AB) and the PCC arent impartial and still complain cover up. As a manager the multiple investigations just make keeping it all straight, separate and updated almost a full time task. On a couple files I had a Public Complaint, Statutory Investigation, Internal Review, Code of Conduct and a Fatality Inquiry. Five different groups doing each. And the family always still calls us and in some cases we spent hours convincing people to talk to all these investigators as they didn't trust them. 

The grass isn't greener.


----------



## Ostrozac

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> in some cases we spent hours convincing people to talk to all these investigators as they didn't trust them.



That's also been my experience with outside investigators in the CF. Even on relatively simple files, it can be an uphill battle for members to cooperate, even when they want to, even with MP investigators from outside the unit, who are at least military personnel. The investigators don't understand the unit roles and pace, the acronyms and jargon need to be explained, and sometimes they are completely unsuited to the file. War story time -- I was once involved as a witness in a mishandling of classified materials. An MP came over to my unit to interview me -- the MP didn't have an appropriate security clearance, so I couldn't tell him very much at all about the incident. It was frustrating for both of us, and I wasn't even trying to hide anything or cover things up. Contrast this to an investigation ordered by a CO, where the investigating officer is from the unit in question and should have a least a bit of a background on the situation.

This hypothetical outside agency that will investigate sexual complaints -- are they going to fly investigators out to Kurdistan, to ships at sea, and to CFS Alert? And expect witnesses to explain their jobs at the same time that they are under investigation? I don't see it working very well at all.

I'm a big fan of enabling the Commanding Officer to deal with issues of discipline, but I'm also in favour of relieving said CO's that just don't get it. If there's a unit, or a schoolhouse, or a ship that has developed a culture of sexual harassment then I'd much rather see that one CO go up for court-martial rather than a hundred witchhunts that are unlikely to result in charges laid.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I'd much rather see that one CO go up for court-martial rather than a hundred witchhunts that are unlikely to result in charges laid.



But that might leave you with 99 witches. Sometimes it's better to deal with the whole coven, no?


----------



## cupper

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> This hypothetical outside agency that will investigate sexual complaints -- are they going to fly investigators out to Kurdistan, to ships at sea, and to CFS Alert? And expect witnesses to explain their jobs at the same time that they are under investigation? I don't see it working very well at all.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but the outside agency as described by Mme Justice doesn't actually do any investigation according to the description of it's scope of responsibility.



> Create an independent center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment outside of the CAF with the responsibility for receiving reports of inappropriate sexual conduct, as well as prevention, coordination and monitoring of training, victim support, monitoring of accountability, and research, and to act as a central authority for the collection of data.





> CASAH should be responsible for receiving reports of both sexual harassment and sexual assault, and victims should have control over whether the report will or will not trigger an investigation. In either event, the victim should be entitled to receive assistance and support. Further, CASAH should be tasked with prevention, victim support, monitoring of accountability (including follow-up on complaints of both sexual harassment and sexual assault), and conducting research. CASAH should also act as a central authority for the collection of data with respect to sexual and harassment and assault, including the number of reports made, complaints filed and charges laid, the status of investigative procedures, and the outcome of complaints by year, unit and environment. CASAH should produce annual reports.
> As discussed below, the ERA further recommends that CASAH be involved in the development and implementation of policies and procedures related to inappropriate sexual conduct, and to the development and implementation of training.
> Victims should also retain the option of reporting to the chain of command if they prefer. Not all victims may be comfortable using the same channel for reporting, and it is important to provide victims with a range of options.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I am sure somewhere in the CF Military Admin Law manual it says everyone is entitled to due process, disclosure, etc.

So what happens if someone reports me but doesn't want to officially lodge a formal complaint?  

Some of this seems amateur in construct and without consideration for our admin laws.


----------



## cupper

Just as a counter point, The Pentagon still has problems addressing the sexual assault issue as well. It seems that instances of retaliation against members who report assaults is still a problem.

*Instances of sexual assault among troops decrease, report suggests*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/instances-of-sexual-assault-among-troops-decrease-report-suggests/2015/05/01/2298afba-f022-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html



> Instances of sexual assault among U.S. service members have fallen over the past year, a new report suggested Friday, but Pentagon officials said more work remains to be done on preventing retaliation against those who report abuse.
> 
> Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, presenting his department’s assessment of sexual assault for fiscal 2014, said the military had made strides in discouraging abuse across the armed forces.
> 
> A Pentagon-commissioned study by the private RAND Corp. found that an estimated 18,900 service members, including 10,400 men and 8,500 women, were subjected to some kind of unwanted sexual contact, a drop of 27 percent from fiscal 2012. Unwanted sexual conduct is a term that covers a wide variety of actions.
> 
> The RAND assessment, which was based on a survey of service members, also introduced a new measurement for tracking assaults — rather than unwanted sexual contact — which will make it easier to prosecute them. Using this terminology, RAND found that an estimated 20,300 out of a total of 1.3 million service members were victims of sexual assault in 2014.
> 
> “That’s clearly far, far too many,” Carter told reporters at the Pentagon. “Even though sexual assault is a disgrace in any form and happens far too often across our country, it’s a particular challenge for us here.”
> 
> In 2014, the Pentagon received 6,131 reports of sexual assault, a jump of 11 percent from 2013, a change that officials believe signals improved confidence in the military’s ability to respond properly to such allegations.
> 
> Much of the data presented Friday was contained in a December 2014 report to the White House, but this week’s report provides additional details that paint a mixed picture of abuse in the military.
> 
> Accounts of widespread assault within the ranks and officials’ failures in holding perpetrators accountable have emerged as a major issue for Pentagon leaders in recent years. Carter, who took office in February, said the military’s ability to learn from mistakes would help it move toward eradicating sexual assault.
> 
> For the first time, the annual study examined how male service members experience assault. It found they were more likely to experience repeated abuse by more than one person and were more likely to view the aggression as hazing instead of sexual acts.
> 
> The report also suggested that 22 percent of active-duty women and 7 percent of active-duty men experienced sexual harassment.
> 
> “In short, the report makes it crystal clear that we have to do more,” Carter said.
> 
> To address such problems, Carter has ordered steps to alter the military’s “organizational culture” and to provide the tailored care that men or women might require if they become victims of abuse.
> 
> He has also asked officials to develop a strategy for preventing retaliation against those who report sexual assaults and other crimes. Studies show that many female service members who report sexual assaults have experienced some kind of social or professional retaliation.
> 
> “No man or woman who serves in the United States military should ever be sexually assaulted. Nor should they experience reprisals for reporting such crimes,” Carter said.


----------



## OldSolduer

IF an outside agency were to be formed, how many of you are willing to bet the CEO would be a Col (retired) Bloggins?


----------



## Robert0288

Or at least a ret. BGen.  Who else would be able to deal with the jargon being used?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> IF an outside agency were to be formed, how many of you are willing to bet the CEO would be a Col (retired) Bloggins?



I think you're 100% right and that decision would be 100% wrong.

The last thing anyone is going to do is listen to a Col who will in all likelihood come across as out of touch and detached from every day army life.

Instead of paying a retired colonel a whole bunch of money to come in and poli-speak to everyone they should pay an ex CF victim of abuse/harassment to come in and talk about their experiences.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Back on track.

Saw this somewhere on Facebook while cruising around:

"Yesterday I was a hero, adored by my countrymen.
Today, I'm a sexual deviant abhorred by the same"


----------



## Halifax Tar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Back on track.
> 
> Saw this somewhere on Facebook while cruising around:
> 
> "Yesterday I was a hero, adored by my countrymen.
> Today, I'm a sexual deviant abhorred by the same"



Thats a really sad statment.  To be honest in the civilian dominant circles I run in it really didnt cause any stir.  Most gave a cursory *meah* and have forgotten about it already. 

I wonder if we, as the subject matter, arent reading more into this than the public in general.


----------



## cupper

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I wonder if we, as the subject matter, arent reading more into this than the public in general.



Regardless of what the public perception is WRT the subject at hand, there is still the overall effect that the report, its recommendations and subsequent actions will have on the institution as a whole. We may well be overestimating how much the public really cares about the issue, but we still have a vested interest in how the report is handled internally.


----------



## Halifax Tar

cupper said:
			
		

> Regardless of what the public perception is WRT the subject at hand, there is still the overall effect that the report, its recommendations and subsequent actions will have on the institution as a whole. We may well be overestimating how much the public really cares about the issue, but we still have a vested interest in how the report is handled internally.



Absolutely we do.  But the comment I quoted is about a public perception.


----------



## Shrek1985

Question:

Has there ever been an inquiry like this ever, which failed to find massive sexual misconduct and harassment?

I mean; this is big bucks, right? There will need to be training, teaching materials, posters, presentations and seminars, all by "Experts" and I presume, all coming out of the military's budget.


----------



## OldSolduer

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> IF an outside agency were to be formed, how many of you are willing to bet the CEO would be a Col (retired) Bloggins?




I'm a suspicious jerk - Which naturally led me to the above comment.



			
				Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Question:
> 
> Has there ever been an inquiry like this ever, which failed to find massive sexual misconduct and harassment?
> 
> I mean; this is big bucks, right? There will need to be training, teaching materials, posters, presentations and seminars, all by "Experts" and I presume, all coming out of the military's budget.


----------



## geo

FWIW, the population of the CF reflects the population of the country. If there are 5 sexual assaults per day in the CF with +/- 85000 members, then there are more than 2000 sexual assaults per day in the whole country.  If they say that we have a problem, what do they have? And what are they going to do about it?


----------



## geo

Yeah, yeah, I Know, they'll hammer down on the CF and give the general population (pun), a feel good moment, for a job well done...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

geo said:
			
		

> Yeah, yeah, I Know, they'll hammer down on the CF and give the general population (pun), a feel good moment, for a job well done...



Is that what's usually referred to as a 'happy finish'?


----------



## cupper

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is that what's usually referred to as a 'happy finish'?



There you go with that sexualized language again.  >


----------



## Brad Sallows

But the population of the CF does not reflect the population of the country, nor should anyone expect it to.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

geo said:
			
		

> Yeah, yeah, I Know, they'll hammer down on the CF and give the general population (pun), a feel good moment, for a job well done...



But the rest of the Canadian public doesn't have unlimited liability nor a monopoly on the use of force in external affairs. The CF MUST hold itself to a higher standard than the rest of the Canadian population, as we need every single soldier/sailor/airman working on the same team to achieve the goals of the Canadian public. Because of our dynamic we, the leadership of the CF, must hold ourselves to a higher standard so using the "we are the same as the rest of the population" is a cop out.

My beef with the situation is that leadership has failed to defend the majority of people who have served with integity while refusing to focus efforts to find and punish those leaders who have proven that they aren't worthy of their positions in the CF. I'm also doubtful that the addition of another layer of beaurocracy, headed by a MGen and remaining firmly planted in Ottawa, will have any real effect on the problem on the ground. There are simpler solutions, such as 360 evaluations, that could just as easily assist in shedding light on poor leadership. IF the culture is to defend the honour of the (insert unit/branch here) than we need to ensure that leadership understands that their soldiers are more important than units and that their actions are bringing more disgrace to said units than the harrassment or assault would have.


----------



## geo

Understand that, while I Stated that we are no different from the rest of the Canadian public, it is in the context that the CF has not done anything (or not much) with the resources that are available. 
From a personal experience point of view, LFQA / 2 Div considered it a cost centre that they could allow themselves to cut, because cases were down, because we were working at it. So they dismantled the resource


----------



## captloadie

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> But the population of the CF does not reflect the population of the country, nor should anyone expect it to.



I have been sitting back waiting for someone to bring this point up, with which I wholeheartedly agree. We are well past the days where the CAF will take in anybody off the streets. The testing and screening that occurs before enrolment makes many of us much more alike than the Canadian population as a whole. Perhaps that is part of the problem. Maybe our screening process actually favours some specific character trait that allows a greater number of members who are inclined towards this behaviour. Could it be that the number of instances in the CAF is statistically *higher* due to the type of individuals that get enrolled?


----------



## Brad Sallows

The specific character trait that introduces risk is "young men".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> But the population of the CF does not reflect the population of the country, nor should anyone expect it to.



It sure does reflect the population;  Canadians, from coast to coast and from all walks of life.   Therefore we will have the same types of issues in the workplace as the rest of Canada does.

Is there some secret decoder ring at CFRCs that can pick out people who might cross the line?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The specific character trait that introduces risk is  "young men" PEOPLE.



FTFY


----------



## Brad Sallows

If I choose 1000 Canadians of military age at random from the general population, and 1000 from the CF, I am unlikely to find that the latter is much of a mirror of the former.  Members of the CF are firstly self-selected, and then occupationally selected.

Young men are more likely to be brash, rude, violent, anger prone, given to general jackass behaviour, offensive, etc, etc.

Any more politically correct, but biologically and socialogically incorrect, talking points?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I am far from the poster boy of PC anything.

CAF members are drawn from Canadian fucking society. If anyone thinks that some of them, men and women, won't cause the same problems in the CAF workplace as any other workplace those people are mistaken.

I have trained many a recruit, and I assure you that the % of problem-child male and females are proportional to their numbers.  Thats from experience, not some random survey or opinion and from training locations CTC, CFLRS, etc over enough years that its not me randomly pulling info out of my arse.

CAF recruits are drawn from Canadian cities, towns, farms and fishing villages.  They are a cross section of Canada, full stop.  

For my own curiosity, are you in, were you in, and how much experience do you have dealing with recruits at Reg force and/or Res TEs?


----------



## opcougar

While I agree to a point, I am however bemused by the omission of young females from post. I mean have you just chosen to ignore all the social media bullying that goes on among *some* young females, all the drinking culture and posting online, provocative behaviour in their quest for "likes" by virtually strangers, entitlement behaviour, foul language / swearing???????

Let me be clear...I for one am NOT condoning any behaviour of harassment be it sexual, gender, race, etc. ZERO TOLERANCE!!!

Another thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the culture / upbringing of individuals. Anyone see the video of the Baltimore mother beating her son on life TV? Tell me the last time you saw anything like that by someone else of a different race. My point is, you can't pigeon-hole all young men, as they are all made from different fabrics, and same goes for females.

People in the CF, do mirror the public as a whole, which includes average bloggins / public and private sector folks, the police, firefighters, etc. 



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If I choose 1000 Canadians of military age at random from the general population, and 1000 from the CF, I am unlikely to find that the latter is much of a mirror of the former.  Members of the CF are firstly self-selected, and then occupationally selected.
> 
> *Young men are more likely to be brash, rude, violent, anger prone, given to general jackass behaviour, offensive, etc, etc.*
> 
> Any more politically correct, but biologically and socialogically incorrect, talking points?


----------



## Brad Sallows

I was in a Res F medical unit for 20 years as a NCM, NCO, and officer.  Res F units have a high turnover of young people, and as a cas aide I got to hang out around other units frequently.  By no means did I ever find the people I worked with in the Res F to be a representative cross-section of people I knew in grade school, people I knew at university, or people I worked with or knew after university.  Our experiences differ.

It is uncontroversial that Canadians, for reasons as varied as economics and culture, are not uniformly attracted to military service.  Government initiatives undertaken specifically to attract people more broadly strongly suggest the forces do not reflect the national makeup of people.  This is stronger evidence than our respective recollections and impressions.

Are we arguing different definitions of "reflects"?  My point is that the forces are not proportionately representative and have very low to nil representation from some slices of society, due to self-selection and then employment selection.  If "reflects" is interpreted as "has at least one of", then I understand your claim.

At no point as a young man did I ever see women behaving like the men on the same scale and scope (occasionally yes; routinely no).  I concede that an 18-25 year old woman today might be as prone to jackass behaviour as an 18-25 year old man; to that I simply can not speak.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I was in a Res F medical unit for 20 years as a NCM, NCO, and officer.  Res F units have a high turnover of young people, and as a cas aide I got to hang out around other units frequently.  By no means did I ever find the people I worked with in the Res F to be a representative cross-section of people I knew in grade school, people I knew at university, or people I worked with or knew after university.  Our experiences differ.
> 
> It is uncontroversial that Canadians, for reasons as varied as economics and culture, are not uniformly attracted to military service.  Government initiatives undertaken specifically to attract people more broadly strongly suggest the forces do not reflect the national makeup of people.  This is stronger evidence than our respective recollections and impressions.



So, pretty much like any job in the forest sector, mining/ oil sector, auto industry/ heavy manufacturing sector, financial/capital management markets, emergency (police/fire/ambulance) services, correctional services, guide/outfitting etc etc etc then? 

And in other news, here's a great letter on the subject:

Cpl. Ashley Turner: Don’t associate me with that Sexualized Culture in the Military report

I was very surprised to see my photograph in the May 1 edition of Metro, and even more surprised to see the article that it was used to illustrate — an article entitled “Military Plagued by Sexualized Culture,” which described the recent report by former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps on the misogyny and sexual harassment that is allegedly commonplace in the Canadian Forces. While I am flattered that my picture was chosen to represent female soldiers in general, I also feel that the immediate impression a reader would get is that it was included to provide an example of a female soldier who has had firsthand experience of the issues discussed in the report. Therefore, I wish to clarify that this is not the case, and that I am not in any way associated with the study in question.

In fact, had I been one of the 700 personnel who were selected to participate in this study, I would have confessed that the time I have spent in the Canadian military — all 12 years of it — has been a very positive experience, and almost entirely free of the issues described in the article. Perhaps I have been unusually lucky to have worked with excellent male colleagues for the entirety of my career, or perhaps I am one of the “desensitized” women the article mentions. I do admit that crude jokes and swear words are spoken regularly in the military, yet I have never felt offended by them. In my experience, jokes that degrade women are not made any more often than jokes that degrade other groups of people — and, in fact, though the article mentions “references to female genitalia” as a particularly offensive example of such a joke, I can assure you that references to male genitalia are far, far more common. What I find much more offensive and misogynistic than any joke I have heard in the military is the notion that females, but not males, are somehow ill-equipped to handle this manner of conversing. The joking I have experienced has almost always been good-natured, and when the time has come to get the job done I have never found myself to be treated any less fairly than anyone else, or to be any less accepted by my peers as a result of my gender.

Of course, for both males and females, personal experience in the Canadian Forces will vary, and I am sure that, at times, legitimate harassment does occur. My intent is not to belittle the victims of this harassment, or to suggest that it should not be taken seriously. I simply wish to state that my experience in the Canadian Forces has been very different than the experiences of the female soldiers described in the article, and that the use of my photograph was therefore probably not the most accurate way to illustrate the concept discussed.

http://metronews.ca/voices/1369279/cpl-ashley-turner-dont-associate-me-with-that-sexualized-culture-in-the-military-report/


----------



## opcougar

Indeed to the words in bold. There was no social media back in my day, and the attitude today amongst most young people regardless of gender, is that they try to live their lives based on reality shows, and are quick to post on social media whilst looking for that 15mins of fame.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I was in a Res F medical unit for 20 years as a NCM, NCO, and officer.  Res F units have a high turnover of young people, and as a cas aide I got to hang out around other units frequently.  By no means did I ever find the people I worked with in the Res F to be a representative cross-section of people I knew in grade school, people I knew at university, or people I worked with or knew after university.  Our experiences differ.
> 
> It is uncontroversial that Canadians, for reasons as varied as economics and culture, are not uniformly attracted to military service.  Government initiatives undertaken specifically to attract people more broadly strongly suggest the forces do not reflect the national makeup of people.  This is stronger evidence than our respective recollections and impressions.
> 
> Are we arguing different definitions of "reflects"?  My point is that the forces are not proportionately representative and have very low to nil representation from some slices of society, due to self-selection and then employment selection.  If "reflects" is interpreted as "has at least one of", then I understand your claim.
> 
> At no point as a young man did I ever see women behaving like the men on the same scale and scope (occasionally yes; routinely no).  *I concede that an 18-25 year old woman today might be as prone to jackass behaviour as an 18-25 year old man; to that I simply can not speak.*


----------



## cupper

So to ensure that any derogatory term used to describe someone, we now should use the more gender neutral body parts. Form this point on everyone is now an A-hole.

Problem solved. ;D


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So, pretty much like any job in the forest sector, mining/ oil sector, auto industry/ heavy manufacturing sector, financial/capital management markets, emergency (police/fire/ambulance) services, correctional services, guide/outfitting etc etc etc then?
> 
> And in other news, here's a great letter on the subject:
> 
> Cpl. Ashley Turner: Don’t associate me with that Sexualized Culture in the Military report
> 
> 
> http://metronews.ca/voices/1369279/cpl-ashley-turner-dont-associate-me-with-that-sexualized-culture-in-the-military-report/



Good post.  Good on Cpl Turner for her well articulated response to the use of her photo.

Another interesting fact, although minor in some's opinions, to introduce into the conversation may be the small fact of the 'English' culture to use "sexual" innuendo when cursing, as opposed, for example, to other cultures that use "religious" innuendo when cursing.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Good post.  Good on Cpl Turner for her well articulated response to the use of her photo.
> 
> Another interesting fact, although minor in some's opinions, to introduce into the conversation may be the small fact of the 'English' culture to use "sexual" innuendo when cursing, as opposed, for example, to other cultures that use "religious" innuendo when cursing.



I can't imagine who you are talking about  ;D 

I remember when the Vandoos left for their first tour in AFGH. A friend of mine here in Montreal asked me what difference the locals would notice the most when they got there. I told him they would notice two things: One, an average height difference of four inches smaller and, Two, the Vandoos are much more "religious" than the Anglo troops they relieved  .

On a more sober note, I concur that its good on Cpl Turner for setting the record straight, and nicely written too.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>So, pretty much like any job in the ...

If you mean, tends to attract men more than women, yes.

I spent a couple of summers on my grandfather's salmon troller.  The fishermen I met were another example of a group which did not reflect a broad cross-section of Canadians and they were also a different crew from those I met in the Res F.

But personal impressions are irrelevant to the claim of "is representative".  No-one can truly know what is the "broad cross-section of Canadians", which is required to make the claim.  Conversely, it is a simple matter to consider some people and determine - by the application of mere common sense - that they are distinctive.


----------



## mariomike

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> But personal impressions are irrelevant to the claim of "is representative".  No-one can truly know what is the "broad cross-section of Canadians", which is required to make the claim.



Many pages and many discussions here concerning the above as it applies to the CAF.

eg: "Is the CAF as diversified as canada is?"


----------



## Brad Sallows

I know; I and I know I'm beating it to death.  But "the CAF is/should be a reflection of Canada" is one of my least favourite platitudes, along with "diversity will make us better/stronger".  They are substitutes for a proper discussion of what could be done to improve/fix something, and hinder attempts to understand a problem.


----------



## Tibbson

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I know; I and I know I'm beating it to death.  But "the CAF is/should be a reflection of Canada" is one of my least favourite platitudes, along with "diversity will make us better/stronger".  They are substitutes for a proper discussion of what could be done to improve/fix something, and hinder attempts to understand a problem.



I see the point with people who make that statement however I see a big flaw with it.  Canadian society is made up of people who are born into it or, in some cases, immigrate to it.  People live their lives within the confines of the law and their personal morals and values.  When those two collide there is a mechanism to deal with it.

The CAF is different however.  Nobody is born into it or immigrates into it.  People choose to join it and to do so they go through a selection and screening process.  They also are required to abide by a higher standard with respect to their conduct.  That selection process and the higher standards we are held to should be enough to discount the "we are a reflection of Canadian society" excuse.  If we are a reflection of Canadian society then I suggest we have failed as a military both through our selection process and our day to day conduct.  Leaders, followers and everyone in between.


----------



## mariomike

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I know; I and I know I'm beating it to death.



Not at all, Brad. I was simply agreeing with you based on what I have read on the subject in previous discussions.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Working weekends? Poor things...

Activist, educator recalls hostile experience at RMC 

When award-winning feminist activist and educator Julie Lalonde found out the Royal Military College of Canada was going to require the entire school to attend sexual harassment briefings, she was thrilled to participate. Little did she know she would need an escort to her car afterwards.

"There is always resistance to the work. I'm talking about sexual violence, which is not a comfortable topic for people," Lalonde told the Whig-Standard Thursday. "But there is a difference between skepticism or resistance and hostility.

"What I experienced at RMC was hostility that was palpable. You could walk into that room and feel the tension. I really feel like ... I was set up by the institution."

Lalonde, 30, has an extensive resume in sexual violence education, and most recently she developed and manages draw-the-line.ca, and founded Hollaback! an international movement against street harassment. In 2011, she received a Femmy Award for her work in the National Capital region, and received the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case in 2013.

On Oct. 4, 2014, Lalonde gave her "Draw the Line" presentation, a project she developed and manages as part of the province of Ontario's antisexual violence public education campaign. During and between her briefings, she was cat-called and the victim of rape jokes, amongst other comments. After filing a complaint, Brig.-Gen. Al Meinzinger, commandant of RMC, sent a formal apology to her employer at the beginning of February.

"I would like to reiterate my apology for the unprofessional behaviour of select Officer Cadets, and any challenges that resulted from the set up and organization of the presentation," Meinzinger wrote. "Rest assured that corrective steps were taken against the most difficult groups."

In the spring of 2014, Lalonde was first asked to give her "Draw the Line" presentation to the entire officer cadet population at RMC. The daughter, granddaughter and niece of former military members, was thrilled RMC was progressive enough to force the students to attend.

The presentation touches on the legal definition of consent, what it looks like in a real-life situation, statistics of sexual violence and assault in Canada, bystander intervention, and challenging the bystander effect. Lalonde said she was also asked to speak specifically to alcohol-facilitated sexual assault and online sexual violence.

This is a presentation Lalonde said she has given more than 100 times, from Grade 6 students to other members of the military at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. Never had she been treated in such an aggressive way.

"Alcohol-facilitated sexual assault was by far the piece they were the most opposed to," Lalonde said. "I was told women who drink too much are enabling their own rape, and that I'm naive for thinking otherwise. Just a real array of disrespectful comments that were really dismissive, and when I was coming back from lunch, walking up to the podium I was cat-called.

"At one point, one of the cadets looked me up and down, and said he might have listened to me if I wasn't a woman and a civilian."

Held on a Saturday, Lalonde spoke to all years individually. She said the third-years were by far the most horrendous.

"Probably half the time I was there (it) was them very aggressively arguing that alcohol-facilitated sexual assault is not a problem, it's women making poor choices," Lalonde said. "They were unbelievable. Literally getting up, clapping, cheering when someone would insult me."

Lalonde said there was a small ray of sunshine during the third-year presentation, courtesy of an officer cadet who stood up for her during the onslaught.

"He went off on them," Lalonde said. "He said, to quote: 'The way in which we talk about women here at RMC is f---ing disgusting.' Then went off to say he was offended he had to sit there and listen to people complain, when we are talking about women as victims, because women are the victims of sexual violence.

"That was an incredible moment, because here I was being attacked and this one person willing to stand up and challenge them and defend me, basically."

During the fourth-year presentation, Lalonde said a cadet in a leadership role also told off fellow students who were complaining and being rude.

By the end of the day, Lalonde said she was exhausted and frightened by the hostile experience.

"I pretended to not know where the parking lot was so I could be escorted to my car," Lalonde said. "The third group was so incredibly hostile that I genuinely did not feel comfortable walking across that campus by myself."

Lalonde felt the organizers of the briefings set her up to fail. When she arrived, she was told by organizers that cadets weren't happy with her because they had been told only a few days earlier that they would have to work on a weekend.

"That was not fair to me or the cadets," Lalonde said. "You're setting up this antagonism because they think they are here at 8 a.m. on a Saturday because I made them be here, and that I took away their weekend privilege.

"The campus decided it would be on a Saturday; I didn't want to work on a Saturday, either."

Lalonde said there was no supervision or chain of command present for the afternoon briefings for the third- and fourth-year students.

What made things worse was when Lalonde complained to the university. Questioning her, they asked her to provide a detailed timeline of events and proper evidence of the allegations she had made. She said she was also asked for names of any victims of assault or violence who had approached her, which she did not reveal due to confidentiality.

"It was clear they had set me up in this way of 'prove it,'" Lalonde said. "I've given that exact presentation to members of Parliament and if I had had a bad experience and I complained, I can't imagine I would have been put on trial, essentially."

RMC could not be reached for comment. The Department of National Defence provided the Whig-Standard with a comment stating the goal of the briefings was to provide cadets with awareness of sexual assault and violence.

"With the sensitivity of this topic, an open environment of frank discussion was believed to be the best way to help meet the intent of these briefings," said the statement. "Ms. Lalonde's presentation helped us meet the objective of broadening student understanding of bystander intervention."

Lalonde said the whole situation was an institutional failure.

"There was no real leadership," Lalonde said. "Just smoke and mirrors, and checking off a box."

http://www.thewhig.com/2015/05/21/activist-educator-recalls-hostile-experience-at-rmc


----------



## RedcapCrusader

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Working weekends? Poor things...
> 
> Activist, educator recalls hostile experience at RMC
> 
> **snip**
> 
> http://www.thewhig.com/2015/05/21/activist-educator-recalls-hostile-experience-at-rmc



Wow. 

Talk about one embarrassment after another.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> Talk about one embarrassment after another.



Well, that was my first thought then of course there's the possibility she's exaggerating for one reason or another. 

But hey, I know that stuff never happens in newspapers ...  :


----------



## RedcapCrusader

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, that was my first thought then of course there's the possibility she's exaggerating for one reason or another.
> 
> But hey, I know that stuff never happens in newspapers ...  :



Ah, aha! Good point.  :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, that was my first thought then of course there's the possibility she's exaggerating for one reason or another.
> 
> But hey, I know that stuff never happens in newspapers ...  :


I agree 100%, but what if it has the kernel of truth?  After all, this could _never_ happen ....


> .... "Alcohol-facilitated sexual assault was by far the piece they were the most opposed to," Lalonde said. "I was told women who drink too much are enabling their own rape, and that I'm naive for thinking otherwise. Just a real array of disrespectful comments that were really dismissive, and when I was coming back from lunch, walking up to the podium I was cat-called.
> 
> "At one point, one of the cadets looked me up and down, and said he might have listened to me if I wasn't a woman and a civilian." ....


Remember, like any other rule, it only takes a few (sometimes, very few) idiots to get the rest of the group painted, right?


----------



## c_canuk

I hope there is video of the event in question, so that the culprit(s), whoever they are, are quickly held accountable.


----------



## Strike

I'm surprised that there was no senior leadership present during the seminar, but I also wonder if that was a request of the speaker.  Not unlikely given the topic of conversation and the belief that the Sr staff may have made the cadets less likely to speak up on topics.

As for the cadets being annoyed about losing a Saturday, they would have known about this trg weekend well ahead of time.  The speaker's comment about that issue seems like she's trying to put blame on the school as opposed to the cadets themselves.

Either way, the cadets as a whole should be ashamed of the attitudes that some of them showed.


----------



## jollyjacktar

If the cadets of today are similar to those I had on my phase training at Gagetown back in 82, I'm not surprised.  They were (in my opinion), to a man with the one exception of a kid from CMR, the most disagreeable, arrogant SOB's I have ever had the displeasure to be stuck with.


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If the cadets of today are similar to those I had on my phase training at Gagetown back in 82, I'm not surprised.  They were, to a man with the one exception of a kid from CMR, the most disagreeable, arrogant SOB's I have ever had the displeasure to be stuck with.



Much the same in the '70's, but I must say that I did run into a few that were of solid character that went counter to the overall generalization of the product produced there.


----------



## McG

While it appears some in RMC attempted to reinforce to conclusions of the Deschamps report, some positive counterpoints are coming out of Fredericton/Gagetown.



> Sexual misconduct in military not as bad as portrayed, says ex-base commander
> Michael Staples
> The Daily Gleaner
> 22 May 2015
> 
> The man who oversaw the introduction of women into combat roles in the Canadian military has concerns about a recent report on sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces.
> 
> Lewis MacKenzie, the commander of Base Gagetown and the Combat Training Centre in the late 1980s and into 1990, said he thinks the problem isn't as bad as portrayed in a report last month by former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps.
> 
> "I'd bet my life on it - that it's not to the extent that one who was unfamiliar with the subject on reading of the report would surmise," MacKenzie said in an interview.
> 
> "I think the language was certainly over the top."
> 
> Deschamps's external review of sexual harassment in the army produced 10 recommendations, including that the military acknowledge that inappropriate sexual conduct is a problem and put a strategy in place to change the military's culture.
> 
> The report said there is an "undeniable problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the (Canadian Armed Forces), which requires direct and sustained action.
> 
> "Dismissive responses such as, 'This is just the way of the military' are no longer appropriate."
> 
> Defence Minister Jason Kenney said the military not only accepted her report but will also implement all of the recommendations.
> 
> The report also recommended an independent agency be set up outside the military chain of command to handle sexual misconduct complaints.
> 
> MacKenzie said there were concerns when the decision was made by the military to mix the sexes in combat roles, which included infantry, armoured, artillery and combat engineering.
> 
> "We discussed at the time that we were going to be putting people - at the height of the active hormone season for men and women - together, from the ages 17 to whatever it is, 30, depending on your age," he said. "And that we should anticipate some problems."
> 
> MacKenzie, a retired major-general, said his concerns lessened after he was posted to Sarajevo during the height of the war in the former Yugoslavia. At that time, he said, there were a lot of women in the military from Scandinavian countries and Britain.
> 
> "I realized my fear was unfounded in an operational theatre where, you would think that, next to wanting to stay alive, doing what comes naturally would be second on your priority list."
> 
> But MacKenzie said he's concerned these days when incidents of a sexual nature occur in a training environment, involving young recruits, especially if instructors take advantage of their positions of power.
> 
> The former base commander said it's his belief that sexual harassment occurs less frequently in the combat arms and among the front-line troops in the air force, army and navy, than elsewhere.
> 
> Katherine Greer-Hulme, a retired military sergeant who served more than 25 years in uniform, said she was harassed while in the Forces and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
> 
> "Here in Gagetown especially - we're the largest training base in all of North America and this is where everybody comes to train - so there is going to be problems," Greer-Hulme said in an interview.
> 
> "It has to be addressed and people have to have an avenue to go to be able to voice their concerns. If you have people in authority that are not willing to speak to it or to listen, that's where the issues happen."
> 
> Greer-Hulme said she was generally harassed while she served and voiced her concerns about it to the chain of command.
> 
> But instead of having the alleged actions of the other party addressed, she was moved, she said.
> 
> "In my particular case, it wasn't dealt with the way it should be," she said. "I hope for soldiers coming up in today's army that, if a concern is raised, there is an avenue for them to voice their concerns."
> 
> Greer-Hulme said she didn't think the problem is any worse in the military than it is in the civilian world.
> 
> Marie LeLoup, a retired colonel who served at Base Gagetown, said her career ran smoothly.
> 
> "Speaking from personal experience, I saw very little that was inappropriate," LeLoup said in an email.
> 
> "The incidents that I did see were, in my view, appropriately addressed and lots of improvements were made over the years.
> 
> "I truly believed that Canadian men were light years ahead of other men in how they related to women as equals. I said that more than once and encouraged young women to join the CF."
> 
> She said she recently made similar comments on her Facebook page and was struck by the many remarks she received indicating there is a problem.
> 
> "I won't discount, diminish or deny these comments or experiences," she said. "So yes, it does occur and because it occurs, (it) is a problem."
> 
> LeLoup said she believes in the mechanisms that were established and saw them working well within the chain of command and with the right leadership.
> 
> "Improvements are necessary but I am not a fan of another and separate reporting/investigation system that further guts the chain of command," she said.
> 
> "In my view, it is a leadership issue that touches on every rank in the CF. If mixed gender leadership training has slipped over the years due to other priorities then it needs to be re-instated and beefed up.
> 
> "In light of the disturbing trends in society ... training, regarding what is acceptable and what is not, needs to be established at the recruit level and reinforced at every leadership course for officers and NCMs."
> 
> Retired colonel Ryan Jestin, another former Gagetown commander, said progress is being made in Canada's military to make life easier for women who choose the Armed Forces as a career.
> 
> During his three decades in uniform, Jestin said, he has witnessed huge changes in attitudes toward a fully integrated and non-gender specific military.
> 
> "Over that same period I saw women being accepted in all trades and classifications across the CAF, and a concerted effort to make the environment safe, unbiased and harassment free," Jestin said in an email.
> 
> But, he added, it would also be naive to assume that every military unit is completely accepting and non-biased toward women.
> 
> "I think, having now been on the other side as a civilian that, unfortunately, we all need to be cognisant of the reality that some folks still hold old thoughts of bias towards women in general and their rightful place in the workplace."
> 
> MacKenzie said the matter has now become a political issue and something will have to be done to demonstrate the government is taking the recommendations seriously.
> 
> "An outside body will be inevitable," he said.
> 
> "Even though it may not have a dramatic impact, it will satisfy most of the critics and that's why I say it's become a political issue."


----------



## Jarnhamar

Having lived in Kingston for a few years I don't have a relatively high opinion of RCM cadets (no offense to RMC grads present). The 3rd and 4th year cadets were particularly bad.  The story sounds pretty extreme but I can believe it.

That said I've also sat though the same kind of briefings that this one sounded like and it was basically a room full of guys being told they were all pretty much rapists and wife abusers waiting to find a victim. Naturally that's not going to sit well with everyone and inadvertently someone stands up and calls bullshit.  The official un-official direction is to just sit down shut up don't debate anything the speaker is saying and just wait until it's finished. 

Having students sit in a mandatory brief like this over a weekend is poor planning since you're pretty much setting the speaker up for failure.  

If RMC students did make those comments or behave like that they should get hammered for it.





			
				Strike said:
			
		

> As for the cadets being annoyed about losing a Saturday, they would have known about this trg weekend well ahead of time.  The speaker's comment about that issue seems like she's trying to put blame on the school as opposed to the cadets themselves.


I'll just disagree a little bit.  I'm sure someone in the chain of command knew about this weekend training well in advance but I've seen this kind of stuff spring on members very last minute.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Way to set the standard RMC.  Working weekends is an injustice.  I recommend operations cease from 1600 Friday until 0800 Monday.


----------



## kratz

It's not suprising to see Ms. Lalonde's agenda when reading today's more in depth coverage  of her story.



> Julie Lalonde says she didn’t go public in October after she was subjected to cat-calls and harassment at the Royal Military College in Kingston — which had hired the outspoken advocate for sexual-assault prevention to speak to cadets — because she wasn’t convinced people would believe her.
> 
> But then the allegations and, later, criminal charges against former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi surfaced, triggering, in her words, “a watershed moment” that changed the contemporary conversation about sexual assault and sexual violence directed at women.
> 
> “I really do believe that people are fed up with what’s going on, but I don’t think what happened to me was particularly unique,” she said Friday of the incident at RMC, for which school officials have now apologized.
> 
> “I think it was status quo for that institution, and the only thing that’s changed is our perspective on it.”



more at link...

I'm not disputing what may have happen, but the source, timing are suspect


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well you know, it's tough on Mount Olympus with all the other gods...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kratz said:
			
		

> It's not suprising to see Ms. Lalonde's agenda when reading today's more in depth coverage  of her story.
> 
> more at link...
> 
> I think it is relevant to the issue despite optics.  If nothing happened then why issue an apology?
> 
> This...institution is supposed to developing the future leadership of the CAF, as a taxpayer I find it concerning these kinds of dingbats are even making it to third year.
> I'm not disputing what may have happen, but the source, timing are suspect


----------



## McG

> Court martial hears from victim of alleged sexual misconduct at RMC
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> The Globe and Mail
> 22 May 2015
> 
> KINGSTON — In a makeshift courtroom at the Royal Military College this week, a Second Lieutenant in a blue military dress uniform recounted the night she says a fellow cadet – a man who was her friend and her superior – walked naked into her shower stall.
> 
> Her testimony, delivered mostly with confidence but occasionally punctuated by tears, revealed the turmoil she has endured in the aftermath of the incident – and the denunciation she faced from fellow cadets for her decision to lodge a sexual-assault complaint against her alleged assailant.
> 
> The ostracism was “unbearable,” said the officer, whose name is under a publication ban, and who was promoted to Second Lieutenant this month at the direction of the Chief of Defence Staff after the psychological trauma threatened to end her military career.
> 
> Other students were saying “it was something that should not have been reported, that it shouldn’t be taken that seriously,” she told the court martial of Officer Cadet Alex Whitehead, which is expected to continue at least through next week.
> 
> A wide-ranging review of sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces that was conducted by former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps and made public on April 30 found there is an “underlying sexualized culture” in the military that is hostile to women – and the military colleges, where “sexual assault [is] an ever present risk,” are no exception.
> 
> The court martial of OCdt. Whitehead is one of the rare cases in which allegations of sexual misconduct at a military college are taken to college superiors and then land before a judge. And, when they do, the hearings are rarely attended by the media.
> 
> Studies say only a small fraction of military women who are assaulted choose to lodge a complaint – for the sake of their own careers, or the careers of the men who assaulted them, or out of fear of bringing disrepute on their army, navy or air force family. They also fear that the chain of command will be sympathetic and loyal to the accused.
> 
> Julie Lalonde, an expert on sexual assault with the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres who was treated with open contempt and catcalls by RMC cadets when she spoke at the school last fall, says there is “an incredibly frightening culture on that campus … it is a hostile place to be a woman.”
> 
> Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel who is a lawyer who handles many military issues and is representing the complainant in this case, says he has nine other female clients who attended RMC who say they were also victims of sexual assault.
> 
> “The message of non-tolerance maybe exists at a higher echelon, where there is no presence of sexual misconduct on a larger scale,” said Mr. Drapeau. But it is not getting through to the cadets who are Canada’s future military leaders, he said. “It’s a real failure, and a failure that we should have addressed decades ago because there have been many warnings to that effect.”
> 
> RMC refused repeated requests for interviews.
> 
> The Second Lieutenant initially rescinded her complaint in the face of the criticism from fellow students. “I was still ashamed of what had happened,” she told the court. But, when a second female cadet told her she had been assaulted by OCdt. Whitehead, she was overwhelmed by the thought that “because I had not proceeded, there was a second victim.”
> 
> First she slit her wrists in a failed suicide attempt. Then she rallied. And now she and the other cadet have helped press criminal charges against OCdt. Whitehead.
> 
> The Second Lieutenant said OCdt. Whitehead was her friend for more than a year before things went wrong. One night in September, 2013, the two went with fellow cadets to a bar in Kingston, Ont. When she decided to leave early, she said OCdt. Whitehead offered to go back to the RMC barracks with her. She could smell the alcohol on his breath when they got in the cab.
> 
> Back at the college, he walked her to her room and asked to come inside, which she said she allowed because she is a member of a peer support group and she assumed he wanted to talk. But he didn’t want to talk, she said, he wanted to kiss her and, despite her protests, the two fell awkwardly onto her bed.
> 
> She scrambled from underneath him and “I told him I am going to take a shower and I want you to go to bed,” she told the court, explaining that she took her bathrobe and headed to the women’s showers where men are not allowed. But, with the water running, she saw his reflection in the bathroom mirror. And then, she said, he was in the shower with her.
> 
> She told the court she turned the water to hot – so hot it burned her back – and he left. For the next 15 minutes “I was in the shower, crouched in a little corner crying.”
> 
> OCdt. Whitehead, who, like his accusers, is in his early 20s, sat with a straight back as he listens to the testimony against him, casting only occasional glances at the witness box.
> 
> The petite Second Lieutenant did not look at him, either. The defence has signalled its intention to point out inconsistencies in her testimony and to raise the issue of her psychological state.
> 
> OCdt. Whitehead was a good person, and a good friend, and everybody makes mistakes, she told The Globe. “Even to this day,” she said, “I believe from the bottom of my heart, that the core, the morals that he has are good and it was due to alcohol and a lack of judgment in one moment that he made the mistake again.”
> 
> Major Edmund Thomas, one of the men who is acting as OCdt. Whitehead’s legal counsel, said the episode has been “devastating” for the young man who entered the military at the age of 18 and held so much promise. After four years at the college, OCdt. Whitehead was not permitted to graduate with the rest of his class and is now posted to do menial work on campus until the case is over. And, even if he is found not guilty, said Major Thomas, the military will do its own review where the burden of proof is much lower than that of the court martial.
> 
> All of this could have been prevented, said Mr. Drapeau, had the leaders at the RMC made clear it to students in year one that sexual assault would not be tolerated. Now, no matter what happens at the trial, OCdt. Whitehead’s career is likely to be affected.
> 
> The second officer who accused OCdt. Whitehead of sexual assault will testify next week. There is a long-term concern, she said, about how it will affect her life in the military.
> 
> “Everybody empathizes but that’s not what you want,” she said. As an officer, she said, “you want people to respect you. You don’t want that to be the first thing that gets to your unit. You are going to be leading troops and you don’t want to be doing it from a position of weakness.”


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/court-martial-hears-from-victim-of-alleged-sexual-misconduct-at-rmc/article24578934/


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/court-martial-hears-from-victim-of-alleged-sexual-misconduct-at-rmc/article24578934/



Although I don't condone the actions that the OCdt is accused of, parts of this incident make me wonder if it has a root cause in our society.  Those who have served with or been exposed to foreign militaries, particularly the Nordic armies, can see the vast differences in our culture when it comes to the mix of men and women in various situations.  Nordic armies have many 'coed' aspects to the way they quarter their personnel, including ablution facilities.  Are we too "Puritanical" or prudish in our society, that it is the central factor in creating these problems?


----------



## c_canuk

> “*The message of non-tolerance maybe exists at a higher echelon*, where there is no presence of sexual misconduct on a larger scale,” said Mr. Drapeau. But it is not getting through to the cadets who are Canada’s future military leaders, he said. “It’s a real failure, and a failure that we should have addressed decades ago because there have been many warnings to that effect.”





> OCdt. Whitehead, who, like his accusers, is in his early 20s, sat with a straight back as he listens to the testimony against him, casting only occasional glances at the witness box.
> 
> The petite Second Lieutenant did not look at him, either. The defence has signalled its intention to point out inconsistencies in her testimony and to raise the issue of her psychological state.
> 
> OCdt. Whitehead was a *good person, and a good friend, and everybody makes mistakes, * she told The Globe. “Even to this day,” she said, “I believe from the bottom of my heart, that the core, *the morals that he has are good * and it was due to alcohol and a lack of judgment in one moment that he made the mistake again.”
> 
> Major Edmund Thomas, one of the men who is acting as OCdt. Whitehead’s legal counsel, said the episode has been “devastating” for the young man who entered the military at the age of 18 and held so much promise. After four years at the college, OCdt. Whitehead was not permitted to graduate with the rest of his class and is now posted to do menial work on campus until the case is over. And, even if he is found not guilty, said Major Thomas, the military will do its own review where the burden of proof is much lower than that of the court martial.
> 
> *All of this could have been prevented, said Mr. Drapeau, had the leaders at the RMC made clear it to students in year one that sexual assault would not be tolerated. Now, no matter what happens at the trial, OCdt. Whitehead’s career is likely to be affected.*
> 
> The second officer who accused OCdt. Whitehead of sexual assault will testify next week. There is a long-term concern, she said, about how it will affect her life in the military.
> 
> “Everybody empathizes but that’s not what you want,” she said. As an officer, she said, “you want people to respect you. You don’t want that to be the first thing that gets to your unit. You are going to be leading troops and you don’t want to be doing it from a position of weakness.”



So if I'm comprehending the article's message... it's not his fault he ignored the sexual harasment policy, ignored his fellow cadet's wishes he withdraw, ignored the no males allowed in the female showers rule and got naked into her stall. It's the fault of leadership not telling him sexual assaults are not tolerated, even though they did. He's a good moral young man who just wasn't told sexual assualt was wrong.

WTF am I reading?

If the details are correct,

1. He *was* told that sexual assault would not be tolerated, and now he's reaping what he sowed. This will further reinforce the rules to others within that institution.
2. A good moral person does not get naked and into the shower stall uninvited by someone who's instructed them to leave.
3. He shouldn't need to be told assaulting fellow cadets is wrong.
4. As for his career being affected, GOOD! We don't need leaders who break rules and assault their peers because they need to be repeatedly reminded that breaking the rules and assualting people is not allowed.

Has the world gone mad!?


----------



## Edward Campbell

:goodpost: c_canuk; and

To George Wallace, _I don't think_ we need to "overthink" this; my guess is that it's about 99% the _fault_ of a mix of immaturity, alcohol and hormones, in whatever order of importance ... the other 1% is the RMC's/the leadership's/society's fault.


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although I don't condone the actions that the OCdt is accused of, parts of this incident make me wonder if it has a root cause in our society.  Those who have served with or been exposed to foreign militaries, particularly the Nordic armies, can see the vast differences in our culture when it comes to the mix of men and women in various situations.  Nordic armies have many 'coed' aspects to the way they quarter their personnel, including ablution facilities.  Are we too "Puritanical" or prudish in our society, that it is the central factor in creating these problems?



I'm not sure if there is a direct correlation, but I can't help but note that Nordic societies do not have a great track record (since the 18th century at any rate) of avoiding conquest and occupation by foreign powers.

Although mutual respect, of which gender equality is an important part, is key to the success of any armed force I would not hold up the Norwegians et al as an example of military effectiveness to be emulated.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... my guess is that it's about 99% the _fault_ of a mix of immaturity, alcohol and hormones, in whatever order of importance ... the other 1% is the RMC's/the leadership's/society's fault.


Let's also not forget this bit:


> .... The Second Lieutenant initially rescinded her complaint *in the face of the criticism from fellow students* ....


A lot of folks here rightly bashed CBC management for letting Gian G. get away with his antics by discouraging complaints in the face of "hey, he's a star", so I think RMC _may_ be more than 1% responsible here.  It's one thing to _say_ "don't do this - it's bad" and having that message _accepted_ and _incorporated_.  I'm not saying RMC discouraged complaints, but if enough of the troops in question did so, it's _another_ leadership fail.


----------



## durhamcadet1

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Let's also not forget this bit:A lot of folks here rightly bashed CBC management for letting Gian G. get away with his antics by discouraging complaints in the face of "hey, he's a star", so I think RMC _may_ be more than 1% responsible here.  It's one thing to _say_ "don't do this - it's bad" and having that message _accepted_ and _incorporated_.  I'm not saying RMC discouraged complaints, but if enough of the troops in question did so, it's _another_ leadership fail.



The reported hesitation of the Second Lieutenant to bring this forward due to pressure from her fellow students is very concerning. One could argue that the unit could have pressured OCdt Whitehead to be accountable for his actions and not to criticize her complaint.  We do not have all of the details and only what has been reported. The reaction around this situation from her peer group does lead to suspect a greater cultural issue within RMC than just a poor judgment on an individual. This is disheartening to hear for female candidates currently in and planning to attend RMC.


----------



## cupper

Aaaaannd the Band Played On:

*Julie Lalonde sees backlash after complaint about Royal Military College cadets*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/julie-lalonde-sees-backlash-after-complaint-about-royal-military-college-cadets-1.3086621



> A sex-assault prevention educator says she's receiving a backlash of nasty and abusive emails and tweets after publicly complaining that she was verbally abused by Royal Military College officer cadets she had been invited to speak to last fall.
> 
> "If me talking about having been harassed compels you to write me an email telling me that I am human garbage and deserve to die, I think you're proving my point," Julie Lalonde told CBC News.
> 
> Lalonde said she had been asked to speak to approximately 1,000 undergraduate students in groups of about 250. All of the students had been ordered to give up a weekend day off to attend the session.
> 
> The cadets were the most hostile audience she'd had in a career of speaking about sexual assault prevention, Lalonde said.
> 
> She complained about being whistled at, cat-called, laughed at and openly disrespected by the officer cadets. She was able after five months to secure an apology from the school's commandant, Brig.-Gen. Al Meinzinger.
> 
> Lalonde went public with her experience, which resulted in a flurry of criticism. Following an interview with Radio Canada, Lalonde said she got "a detailed threat telling me to kill myself."
> 
> She said another person wrote: "If you are to comment about sexual harassment, you need to be able to handle it when it comes your way."
> 
> ​Lalonde's complaints come in the wake of the release of a report by Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps. Deschamps found the military possessed a sexualized culture in which harassment and assault were underreported and often overlooked.​​
> 
> 'Culture of silence'
> 
> Deschamps, along with  Maj.-Gen. Christine Whitecross, who was appointed to lead the military's response team to the report, appeared before a House standing committee on national defence Monday. NDP defence critic Jack Harris mentioned Lalonde's incident and raised concerns that Canadians' sons and daughters who join the military will be protected from criminal acts and harassment.
> 
> "I think my experience of not only having been harassed, but having been harassed for speaking out about it, I think proves the Deschamps report about how there's a culture of silence," Lalonde said.
> 
> "And there's a culture of misogyny and sexism. So much of the response I've gotten is very gendered. It isn't just 'I disagree with you' or 'I don't think you should be speaking out.' It's very clearly gendered. it's very clearly sexist. It's very clearly 'as a woman you're disgusting. I can't believe you would even think you would have the right to speak out on these issues.'"
> 
> The attacks have been very personal, she said, not from people seeking stats or questioning her approach.
> 
> A common response has been "I might've listened to you if you weren't a woman," she said.
> 
> Meanwhile, a number of cadets who took part in the lecture have accused Lalonde of being provocative and baiting and suggesting that RMC men had a "rapist" culture across the board. Lalonde has denied this, and stated emphatically on Twitter that she "did not in any way, shape or form imply that all men are rapists."


----------



## George Wallace

cupper said:
			
		

> Aaaaannd the Band Played On:
> 
> *Julie Lalonde sees backlash after complaint about Royal Military College cadets*
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/julie-lalonde-sees-backlash-after-complaint-about-royal-military-college-cadets-1.3086621



I would hope that no more than a couple people are actually so stupid as to do this.

It does make for sensational news in the media, whether it is true or false.   "If it bleeds, it leads."  And the media is notorious for this, and often slow or even negligent in retracting false claims.


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would hope that no more than a couple people are actually so stupid as to do this.
> 
> It does make for sensational news in the media, whether it is true or false.   "If it bleeds, it leads."  And the media is notorious for this, and often slow or even negligent in retracting false claims.



Two RMC Officer Cadets began court-martials for sexual assault last week.  That's not a problem with the media.  It's not sensationalism.  It's indicative of an institutional problem that needs to be addressed - and for a need to stop pointing fingers everywhere else but at the institution with the problems.

http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/100393/index.do

http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/100291/index.do


----------



## PuckChaser

How many of these incidents involve alcohol? Is it time that RMC went dry? Or certain years are not allowed out?


----------



## George Wallace

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Two RMC Officer Cadets began court-martials for sexual assault last week.  That's not a problem with the media.  It's not sensationalism.  It's indicative of an institutional problem that needs to be addressed - and for a need to stop pointing fingers everywhere else but at the institution with the problems.
> 
> http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/100393/index.do
> 
> http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/100291/index.do



I was referring to people being so stupid as to email Ms Lalonde after the initial story was published of her treatment, and making that into a media circus, whether it was factual or not; not on the problems at RMC.


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many of these incidents involve alcohol? Is it time that RMC went dry? Or certain years are not allowed out?



I know where you might be going with this. I would not encourage any unit to go dry, nor would I decree that cadets be kept apart from civilians. 
Education on relationships, alcohol awareness briefs, and since RMC Is supposed to be producing future leaders have senior cadets brief and supervise the junior ones.
Then hold them accountable for their actions. There is no excuse for harassment, sexual or otherwise.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many of these incidents involve alcohol? Is it time that RMC went dry? Or certain years are not allowed out?



Usually, when things go "Dry" another problem emerges.  When the restriction is let down or dropped temporarily, the members act like children in a candy store and go overboard in their consumption.  Treat them like children and they will act like children.  The trick is to mold them into "responsible adults", responsible for their own actions.


----------



## PuckChaser

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I know where you might be going with this. I would not encourage any unit to go dry, nor would I decree that cadets be kept apart from civilians.
> Education on relationships, alcohol awareness briefs, and since RMC Is supposed to be producing future leaders have senior cadets brief and supervise the junior ones.
> Then hold them accountable for their actions. There is no excuse for harassment, sexual or otherwise.



Absolutely, but the Navy went completely dry (right or wrong), these cadets need to see that it could very easily happen to them. Not that I agree with it, but cutting the booze is the sort of knee-jerk reaction that could save face instead of dealing with the institutional issues.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ballz said:
			
		

> Wow, apparently I hurt your feelings. I assure you I don't envy anyone, I actually don't care too much about RMC right now as I was busy discussing sexual assault. You don't see me running around trying to find out why someone else got extras or put on admin measures or might be charged for this or got jacked up for that or... getting all offended because someone said something I consider negative toward my alma mater.
> 
> I didn't go DEO nor did I ever spend more than 2 weeks on PAT Pl, unless you count block leave between Ph III and IV, but I did go to a civilian university. I matured a lot more in 4 years of living on my own without a babysitter at all times making sure I paid my rent and ate my vegetables, realizing that I no longer had to care about fellow classmates being judgemental because I no longer had to spend any time with them if I didn't want to, than I did in the 3 years of high school prior to that. Kind of off topic but the RMC candidates who created this shitstorm for heckling this Lalonde character reminded me of grade 11 or 12s that decided they were going to take the substitute teacher for a hard ride. Coincidence?
> 
> As I said, most of the RMC grads take a year or two to realize they no longer eat, sleep, and breathe under the same room as their peers and  quickly stop caring so much about what other people think. For most people though, that year or two happens in their first year or two out of high school, where as for most RMC grads, they spend an extra 4 years in that environment. Most RMC grads I know describe it as such. Is it really that hard to believe?
> 
> Anyway, all this tending to your scuffed knee is detracting from my original point and the question of how much this points to the leadership at RMC. This Second-Lieutenant most likely felt immense pressure both for societal reasons as I mentioned (victim-blaming and perpetrator emphasizing) and also because of the environment at RMC (as I have now discussed more than I originally wished to). Just my guess. So how much of that blame lays on RMC leadership? I am unsure. I believe if you treat people like kids they will act like kids, but that seems to be rampant within the Canadian Army at least.



I apologize that I lost my cool for a minute, what I have trouble with though is that I think RMC Cadets (Past, Present and Future) get a bad wrap.  There are a lot of RMC haters out there but it's not going to be the institution that takes the brunt of all this negative publicity, it's going to be the cadets, 90% of whom are good people who are just trying to serve their country.  It's especially disheartening to have your institution put down by people who are supposed to be your friends and also your brothers in arms.     

I applied to RMC because I wanted to be an officer, not because I wanted to go to RMC.  It was a means to an end for me as it was for most of my peers as well.  People who go to RMC should feel proud when they graduate from the school; however, most don't because when they get to a unit and someone finds out they are a ring knocker .... "oh you're one of those" ... yep that was said to me just this past Friday, by a civilian worker at my unit no less, someone who isn't even a member of the profession of arms.  

The feeling surrounding RMC has always been negative, especially within the military writ-large.  Thus, any chance people get to knock the institution, they do so willingly.  This only has the effect though of hurting our most valuable commodity, our people, most of whom are hardworking officers who slave away doing important but largely thankless jobs. In this regard, the negative aura that surrounds RMC is quite similar to the aura that surrounded the Airborne Regiment prior to it's disbandment. 

It's the perception of elitism, something which is a direct contradiction to Canadian values, which allows this attitude to fester, regardless of whether the place, person or thing in question is truly elite or not.  RMC is certainly not elite and the cadets that go there are no better or worse than their DEO counterparts but there are some advantages to RMC which are for another topic but also ties in to your question about whether the leadership holds some of the blame.

If we talk about the leadership of RMC, it must first be stated that RMC is controlled by the military.  The Commandant is a 1* General and answers to a 2* General in charge of CDA.  CDA in turn answers to CMP who is a 3* and is soon to be Chris Whitecross, the GO placed in charge of the sexual misconduct TF (a coincidence? maybe).  There are some other players i.e. Alumni, Academia and the Senate but it's a military organization.  The current CDS is an RMC Graduate and was the Commandant of the school at one point so if we are blaming the leadership for this then is our entire CoC from the top on down at fault?

RMC has been allowed to exist in isolation for a very long time because you've got a substantial portion of the military who think it's a waste of time and money and want it to disappear for good (just like the Army wanted the Airborne to go away) but you've got a minority of officers that went there that is large enough that the institution must be maintained.  These two factions can never come to an agreement on what to do with the place so it's been allowed to exist in stasis mode with the raison-d'etre of the school remaining largely unchanged since the 1960's.


----------



## McG

Not to derail the tangent, but I am sure we have an existing thread to discuss the merits, faults and solutions relating to the institution that is RMC and how we use it to train young officers.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

ballz said:
			
		

> I didn't go DEO nor did I ever spend more than 2 weeks on PAT Pl, unless you count block leave between Ph III and IV, but I did go to a civilian university. I matured a lot more in 4 years of living on my own without a babysitter at all times making sure I paid my rent and ate my vegetables, realizing that I no longer had to care about fellow classmates being judgemental because I no longer had to spend any time with them if I didn't want to, than I did in the 3 years of high school prior to that. Kind of off topic but the RMC candidates who created this shitstorm for heckling this Lalonde character reminded me of grade 11 or 12s that decided they were going to take the substitute teacher for a hard ride. Coincidence?
> 
> As I said, most of the RMC grads take a year or two to realize they no longer eat, sleep, and breathe under the same room as their peers and  quickly stop caring so much about what other people think. For most people though, that year or two happens in their first year or two out of high school, where as for most RMC grads, they spend an extra 4 years in that environment. Most RMC grads I know describe it as such. Is it really that hard to believe?
> 
> Anyway, all this tending to your scuffed knee is detracting from my original point and the question of how much this points to the leadership at RMC. This Second-Lieutenant most likely felt immense pressure both for societal reasons as I mentioned (victim-blaming and perpetrator emphasizing) and also because of the environment at RMC (as I have now discussed more than I originally wished to). Just my guess. So how much of that blame lays on RMC leadership? I am unsure. I believe if you treat people like kids they will act like kids, but that seems to be rampant within the Canadian Army at least.



The distinction between RMC and civilian university that you raise is valid in the discussion of sexual harrasment. Civilian university isn't some sort of panacea of enlightenment for which the others may follow. One only need to look at incidents such as the Dalhousie university dental students, the Saint Mary's University frosh students singing rape songs, and Queen's university, that bastion of liberal morality almost losing its frosh week altogether in the early 2000s due to signs along the highway talking about how the frosh leaders were excited to rip the panties off of peoples daughters to realize that the problem is far more widespread than just RMC.

I dont doubt for a second that there is a problem at RMC, but I would be curious to see how the rate of sexual harassment/rape there compares to a civilian university. Having attended civie U myself I would be surprised if the scales weren't tipped in RMCs balance.... RMC students are given military and leadership training and oversight from experienced officers which SHOULD minimize S.H. incidents (though clearly it wont stop anything completely) while students in civie U are basically tossed into dorms, given massive amounts of liquor and "wished the best of luck".... this is especially true for the 3rd and 4th year leaches who YEARLY take advantage of frosh girls....

Until someone actually comes up with some factors for the rate of rape/sexual harassment at RMC vs civie universities than personally I dont think that anyone should jump to any conclusions about the goings on in the school. If we do than we're just applying a kneejerk solution to a problem instead of identifying the root causes. If the root is leadership, than mass firings should be the COA of choice. If the rates are similar or less than civie U (which I would be surprised if they weren't) than it's a much more difficult problem.

And those who commit the acts should be held doubly accountable as they KNOW better and should be better at dealing with living with female/male peers due to the nature of the military. S.H. and rape at RMC should be treated with more severity than almost every other crime as it is a crime against the very values of the profession of arms that we all joined.


----------



## Strike

I think it's unfair to the 2Lt and to RMC to suggest that her reluctance to come forward had anything to do with the RMC culture.

I've been there myself (not because of anything at RMC) and it's a very hard decision to make.  Not at all cut and dried.  The easy answer is to go and report because the perpetrator might do this again to someone else.  But the victim invariably is also going to consider whether or not this is a one-off and, if so, how will this affect the perpetrator's future.  As well, she's going to consider how going forward will affect her not just with her peers (and this goes for whoever you are, wherever you work or go to school) but when she has to speak about all of it again in a court setting in front of a bunch of strangers.

It's a daunting task and a lot of pressure to put on one person who has already been victimized.

So, her hesitation in reporting is not so much an RMC issue, but a societal issue as a whole.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Strike said:
			
		

> I think it's unfair to the 2Lt and to RMC to suggest that her reluctance to come forward had anything to do with the RMC culture.
> 
> I've been there myself (not because of anything at RMC) and it's a very hard decision to make.  Not at all cut and dried.  The easy answer is to go and report because the perpetrator might do this again to someone else.  But the victim invariably is also going to consider whether or not this is a one-off and, if so, how will this affect the perpetrator's future.  As well, she's going to consider how going forward will affect her not just with her peers (and this goes for whoever you are, wherever you work or go to school) but when she has to speak about all of it again in a court setting in front of a bunch of strangers.
> 
> It's a daunting task and a lot of pressure to put on one person who has already been victimized.
> 
> So, her hesitation in reporting is not so much an RMC issue, but a societal issue as a whole.



Once upon a time leaders met one on one with their troops in confidence for a check in. Usually once every month or so.

These 'meetings' were held ion a variety of locations but were usually most effective when in the field, in informal settings like trenches, vehicles, swamps etc.

Sometimes these leaders discovered things that were going on, that needed to be addressed, during these interviews. Especially if junior soldiers were reluctant to come forward. These leaders then took action on behalf of the soldier.

Once upon a time....


----------



## armyvern

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Once upon a time....



Many units still do this.


----------



## ballz

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The distinction between RMC and civilian university that you raise is valid in the discussion of sexual harrasment. Civilian university isn't some sort of panacea of enlightenment for which the others may follow. One only need to look at incidents such as the Dalhousie university dental students, the Saint Mary's University frosh students singing rape songs, and Queen's university, that bastion of liberal morality almost losing its frosh week altogether in the early 2000s due to signs along the highway talking about how the frosh leaders were excited to rip the panties off of peoples daughters to realize that the problem is far more widespread than just RMC.
> 
> I dont doubt for a second that there is a problem at RMC, but I would be curious to see how the rate of sexual harassment/rape there compares to a civilian university. Having attended civie U myself I would be surprised if the scales weren't tipped in RMCs balance.... RMC students are given military and leadership training and oversight from experienced officers which SHOULD minimize S.H. incidents (though clearly it wont stop anything completely) while students in civie U are basically tossed into dorms, given massive amounts of liquor and "wished the best of luck".... this is especially true for the 3rd and 4th year leaches who YEARLY take advantage of frosh girls....
> 
> Until someone actually comes up with some factors for the rate of rape/sexual harassment at RMC vs civie universities than personally I dont think that anyone should jump to any conclusions about the goings on in the school. If we do than we're just applying a kneejerk solution to a problem instead of identifying the root causes. If the root is leadership, than mass firings should be the COA of choice. If the rates are similar or less than civie U (which I would be surprised if they weren't) than it's a much more difficult problem.
> 
> And those who commit the acts should be held doubly accountable as they KNOW better and should be better at dealing with living with female/male peers due to the nature of the military. S.H. and rape at RMC should be treated with more severity than almost every other crime as it is a crime against the very values of the profession of arms that we all joined.



 :goodpost:

Just want to point out that I wasn't talking about the number of incidents.



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> so if we are blaming the leadership for this then is our entire CoC from the top on down at fault?



I have certainly never believed that our higher ranks are infallible.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> So, her hesitation in reporting is not so much an RMC issue, but a societal issue as a whole.



I'm not reading that she hesitated to report it. I'm reading that she reported it, and then felt so ostracised that she tried to withdraw the complaint. That is pretty crazy. How many times does that happen? In any case...



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> I think it's unfair to the 2Lt and to RMC to suggest that her reluctance to come forward had anything to do with the RMC culture.



Yes, it probably is unfair. I was just hazarding a WAG as to why she felt so ostracised that she actually tried to withdraw her complaint.


----------



## OldSolduer

E-mail recieved that basically orders all COs to conduct a CO's Hour to brief the masses on the CCA Initial Guidance on the report.


----------



## dangerboy

There is a CANARMYGEN that was just released saying the same thing.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

This picture is making the rounds of the RMC campus from Ms. Lalondes Twitter page. Initially I had stated, "Food for thought", but what was meant was for an indication of the RMC frame of mind on the matter. 







*Edited for context


----------



## Strike

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This picture is making the rounds of the RMC campus from Ms. Lalondes Twitter page. Initially I had stated, "Food for thought", but what was meant was for an indication of the RMC frame of mind on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edited for context



Seems she's removed most of her pics from Twitter now.  I also found this one: https://metronewsca.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/aa_27_ott_abortionlalond_sean-e1348697009540.jpg.  It was taken at a pro-choice rally on the Hill.

No wonder people were up in arms about her.  According to miss Lalonde, it's okay to mock men and religion when trying to get your point across.

As much as many people think they are, RMC cadets are not stupid.  You can bet that once they knew who was coming a few of them took to Google to find out what they could about her.  Perhaps some of their preconceived attitudes had something to do with what they found online.

(Still not saying that any cadets who may have acted disrespectfully were in the right.  There are better ways to get your point across.)


----------



## pbi

I had heard about this picture earlier. If she puts it on Facebook, she must be willing to see it circulated more widely, or at the very least acknowledge the high risk of same. I would be interested to see if any media outlets are willing to publish it.

But, so what? What does this change?

Does this rather thoughtless self-promotion mean that *nothing* Ms Lalonde said is at all true? Is the message wrong because we don't like the messenger?

Does it mean there is no problem in the CAF with narrow-minded, immature people with an overwhelming sense of self-entitlement acting out when they feel like it?

Does it mean that there aren't any questions about where the adult leadership in RMC was when this mess happened?

Probably not. In the big picture, this entire embarrassing shambles at RMC, and the Strat/Pol firestorm surrounding the earlier inquiry report, are just distractions from a much bigger question: does the military treat people right, or not? 

If not, why not? And whose ass is going to get kicked over it?

Because to a grubby old retired guy like me, it is exactly just that simple. If you want to change behaviour in a group, you have to work very hard, all the time, until it's changed. Then you keep working hard to make sure it stays that way. You can't just sit in the office and issue e-mails and memos and vapid videos or wall posters, or send out silly (if well-meaning) briefing teams to bother people.

It isn't easy to force change, and you will not be well-liked. You are going to hear people (at all rank levels...) say: "_Hey. c'mon-he's a really good soldier. Can't we just overlook this?_". At the other end, you will also have to deal with the oxygen-stealing disgruntled whiner who sees yet another chance to use the system against their bosses. Good luck sorting that out. (Been there, on both of the above).

Either the CAF will be a place where _*all*_ who make the grade can serve honourably and in good spirit, regardless of who else they happen to be, or it won't be. Take your pick.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

An excellent post, PBI.


----------



## George Wallace

pbi said:
			
		

> I had heard about this picture earlier. If she puts it on Facebook, she must be willing to see it circulated more widely, or at the very least acknowledge the high risk of same. I would be interested to see if any media outlets are willing to publish it.
> 
> But, so what? What does this change?
> 
> Does this rather thoughtless self-promotion mean that *nothing* Ms Lalonde said is at all true? Is the message wrong because we don't like the messenger?



Don't some of those "thoughtless self-promoting" photos on her sites not portray her as a hypocrite?

In response to the rest of your post, do you think that the problem is often that the CAF, on many fronts, has been lacking in having a honest reply, if even a reply of any sort, to accusations in the media?  The CAF often remains silent and in the hopes that any negative media coverage will 'just go away' on its own, without any response to clarify or defend a position that the CAF may hold.


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't some of those "thoughtless self-promoting" photos on her sites not portray her as a hypocrite?



I wouldn't say a hypocrite but the optics and credibility definitely take a hit.


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't some of those "thoughtless self-promoting" photos on her sites not portray her as a hypocrite?
> 
> In response to the rest of your post, do you think that the problem is often that the CAF, on many fronts, has been lacking in having a honest reply, if even a reply of any sort, to accusations in the media?  The CAF often remains silent and in the hopes that any negative media coverage will 'just go away' on its own, without any response to clarify or defend a position that the CAF may hold.



The CAF does a pi$$ poor job of defending itself. I know it has to be difficult as some of those tin foil hatters will always say "you're hiding something". I think sometimes a good solid response to negative press would sure help.


----------



## pbi

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't some of those "thoughtless self-promoting" photos on her sites not portray her as a hypocrite?
> 
> In response to the rest of your post, do you think that the problem is often that the CAF, on many fronts, has been lacking in having a honest reply, if even a reply of any sort, to accusations in the media?  The CAF often remains silent and in the hopes that any negative media coverage will 'just go away' on its own, without any response to clarify or defend a position that the CAF may hold.



Hugely, but it has been so for a long time. I remember being angry about this when I was in uniform. It got better under the last Liberal Govt (around the early days of Afgh), to the point where I do believe that the CAF had the most open and progressive PA policy of all agencies of the Federal Govt. It survived briefly under the Tories, but has long since IMHO gotten much. much worse.

But even in the "good days", I'm not sure we fought back as we should have.

I guess we are caught between being a profession (think of how aggressively many professional associations defend themselves against public injury) and being an arm of the Government, and therefore subject to whatever its StratComm policy might be. (I'm not talking about OPSEC-that is a clear no-brainer)

Concerning the lecturer/dominatrix in question, let me ask this:if an arsonist tells you that your house is on fire, do you just ignore him, or at least have a look?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

pbi said:
			
		

> Hugely, but it has been so for a long time. I remember being angry about this when I was in uniform. It got better under the last Liberal Govt (around the early days of Afgh), to the point where I do believe that the CAF had the most open and progressive PA policy of all agencies of the Federal Govt. It survived briefly under the Tories, but has long since IMHO gotten much. much worse.
> 
> But even in the "good days", I'm not sure we fought back as we should have.
> 
> I guess we are caught between being a profession (think of how aggressively many professional associations defend themselves against public injury) and being an arm of the Government, and therefore subject to whatever its StratComm policy might be. (I'm not talking about OPSEC-that is a clear no-brainer)
> 
> Concerning the lecturer/dominatrix in question, let me ask this:if an arsonist tells you that your house is on fire, do you just ignore him, or at least have a look?



I think the details of her facebook/twitter page and the event do matter if we, the military, are going to take a realistic evaluation of the events that happened at RMC. We have heard, through the media and Ms Lalonde (who is not shy whatsoever in sharing her opinion(s)) what her side of the story is, but the RMC cadets side of the story hasn't been heard aside from people taking an, "off with their heads!" type of approach.

What we want NEED is an internal and external investigation to see what the events were. Many in the RMC circle are claiming that Ms Lalonde was quite provocative in her portrayal of the young men there which caused the reaction she received. Maybe this is the case, maybe it isn't. But by examining her character as part of a larger investigation we could actually come to a real conclusion, pinpoint actual, not perceived problems, and come up with targetted, reasoned responses to attack core problems. What I fear we're going to see is one side taken verbatem and excessive action taken. 

As for the arsonist comment, dont we do this with politicians all the time? For example, does the NDP MLA in Alberta taking a pic giving the Canadian flag the bird reflect on her ability to represent her constituents any more than a harrassment advisor publishing pictures and opinions that are anti-men, anti-religion? And once the person loses credibility do we just ignore the parts that indicate hypocrisy or poor judgement and focus solely on the other parts of her character? If the arsonist told me my house was on fire I wouldn't ignore it, but I sure as f**k would be real skeptical about how the fire started in the first place.


----------



## The Bread Guy

I'm going to throw something a bit different into the mix - I spotted this in one of the stories:


> .... This is a presentation Lalonde said she has given more than 100 times, from Grade 6 students to *other members of the military at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa*. Never had she been treated in such an aggressive way ....


Anyone have a chance to sit in on one of the Petawawa briefings?  Why no fracas out of that?  How is it that folks there were better behaved than at RMC?


----------



## armyvern

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm going to throw something a bit different into the mix - I spotted this in one of the stories:Anyone have a chance to sit in on one of the Petawawa briefings?  Why no fracas out of that?  How is it that folks there were better behaved than at RMC?



Lurking RSMs ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Lurking RSMs ...


Good point ....


----------



## pbi

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ...What we want NEED is an internal and external investigation to see what the events were. Many in the RMC circle are claiming that Ms Lalonde was quite provocative in her portrayal of the young men there which caused the reaction she received. Maybe this is the case, maybe it isn't. But by examining her character as part of a larger investigation we could actually come to a real conclusion, pinpoint actual, not perceived problems, and come up with targetted, reasoned responses to attack core problems. What I fear we're going to see is one side taken verbatem and excessive action taken.



I tend to agree with you here, although should the investigation substantiate it, I'm for exemplary punishment.



> As for the arsonist comment, dont we do this with politicians all the time? For example, does the NDP MLA in Alberta taking a pic giving the Canadian flag the bird reflect on her ability to represent her constituents any more than a harrassment advisor publishing pictures and opinions that are anti-men, anti-religion? And once the person loses credibility do we just ignore the parts that indicate hypocrisy or poor judgement and focus solely on the other parts of her character? If the arsonist told me my house was on fire I wouldn't ignore it, but I sure as f**k would be real skeptical about how the fire started in the first place.



Yes, we may "do it all the time", but it's a logical fallacy.  Just because a person acts in a way we don't like, or even is legally or morally wrong, in no way implies that everything they say is therefore also false. If this were true, police would never rely on informants or stool-pigeons, many of whom are nasty people. 

As you might know from my earlier rants elsewhere on this site about Rob Ford, I am a big believer in character as a prerequisite for leaders. But even Ford said things that were true. Ms Lalonde may have terrible character-I don't know much about her other than her rather stupid picture posting-but that doesn't mean there is no truth in what she says.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

pbi said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with you here, although should the investigation substantiate it, I'm for exemplary punishment.
> 
> Yes, we may "do it all the time", but it's a logical fallacy.  Just because a person acts in a way we don't like, or even is legally or morally wrong, in no way implies that everything they say is therefore also false. If this were true, police would never rely on informants or stool-pigeons, many of whom are nasty people.
> 
> As you might know from my earlier rants elsewhere on this site about Rob Ford, I am a big believer in character as a prerequisite for leaders. But even Ford said things that were true. Ms Lalonde may have terrible character-I don't know much about her other than her rather stupid picture posting-but that doesn't mean there is no truth in what she says.



I agree that if they're found to have been unprovoked and ignorant in the way that she states than they should, at minimum, lose their commissions and be released as we dont need that in our leaders.


----------



## Strike

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm going to throw something a bit different into the mix - I spotted this in one of the stories:Anyone have a chance to sit in on one of the Petawawa briefings?  Why no fracas out of that?  How is it that folks there were better behaved than at RMC?



And the fact that there is such silence from anyone out of Pet on the topic, even here on the site, makes me wonder about the veracity of that statement.


----------



## McG

New sex assault allegations at RMC announced today.  This has not been a positive week for the institution.


> Royal Military College facing new cadet assault allegation
> *On same week as alleged incident, 2 officer cadets before courts martial on other sexual assault allegations*
> JAMES CUDMORE, CBC NEWS
> 27 May 2015
> 
> CBC News has learned military police are investigating a new allegation that a cadet was sexually assaulted at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont.
> 
> The assault is alleged to have taken place on May 13, the day before the college's high-profile convocation.
> 
> Capt. Joanne Labonte said the military's sensitive investigation squad is handling the case.
> 
> "This alleged sexual assault was brought to the attention of the military police by a third party complainant," Labonte wrote in an email to CBC News.
> 
> "The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service are investigating this matter and no further information can be offered at this time."
> 
> The same week the assault is alleged to have taken place, two officer cadets from the college were brought before courts martial to answer to earlier unrelated allegations of sexual assault.
> 
> In one case, a cadet is accused of assaulting two female cadets in separate incidents.
> 
> In the other case, a cadet was found guilty of the lesser offence of assault. Officer Cadet J.C. Scott was sentenced to a  severe reprimand and a fine of $2,000.
> 
> Officials at RMC tell CBC News the school takes sexual misconduct seriously and is crafting a new campaign to deal with the issue.
> 
> The details of the new case are still unclear.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-military-college-facing-new-cadet-assault-allegation-1.3089634


----------



## Brad Sallows

There is a tension here between the duty to be a good listener and the duty to be a credible messenger.

The more the topic hews to moral and ethical issues, the more the responsibility falls on the latter side.  The younger the audience, the more the responsibility falls on the latter side.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

*In the other case, a cadet was found guilty of the lesser offence of assault. Officer Cadet J.C. Scott was sentenced to a  severe reprimand and a fine of $2,000.*

Seriously??  Really??  Are you freakin' kidding me??  Someday some hard-working, honest, salt of the earth Sgt. will have to salute this guy??
Well I guess if you won't get rid of a scab when he or she are at their lowest level, they figure they're untouchable once they get some TI,......and it seems they are correct.
No wonder the leadership of the CAF is rapidly becoming a very unfunny joke.......and it hurts this old guy so much to say that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Bruce,

Not defending the young lad but two things come to mind:

First, the "leadership" of the CF did not find him guilt sentence and sentence him- a judge in a court martial did. Unless you are suggesting judges face command influence? In any case, how do you know if he now faces an admin review and possible release, or not?

Second, perhaps we should all wait until the judgement is published on the JAG website and actually read it, before we rush to judge on how the Judge erred in sentencing...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

You are correct of course, but just as a Judge mostly sentences along the guidelines that society expects, I would assume a military judge would sentence somewhat to what the military expects...............so yes, they do 'face' command influence.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Bruce,

My limited experience with military Judges is that they apply the law. Period. They really don't care what Commanders think, except in the sense that they might offer either evidence or that they might provide tidbits useful for sentencing.

Again, in this case, nothing precludes the CoC from initiating administrative action. That is firmly a Commander's decision.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Agreed, for conviction I'm sure they do, but I'm having issues with the sentencing here, and I am pretty sure that "the law" has no reprimands as a sentencing tool.

Though like you said, it would be prudent to see what the JAG website says.


----------



## FJAG

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You are correct of course, but just as a Judge mostly sentences along the guidelines that society expects, I would assume a military judge would sentence somewhat to what the military expects...............so yes, they do 'face' command influence.



Bruce 

That's a complete misstatement of what command influence is and you know it.

The most obvious conclusion in a case where an person accused of sexual assault is convicted of assault instead is that the judge has found that on the facts of the case the crown has proven that an assault has taken place but has failed to prove that there was a sexual component to the assault.

In its simplest terms, an assault is an application of force to another person without that person's consent. A sexual assault in its simplest terms is an assault of a sexual nature that violates the sexual integrity of the victim. A sexual assault does not have to be a rape, it can be far short of that.

The sentencing factors that are used by military judges are derived primarily from the same principles used by civilian judges. Military judge's decisions, when appealed, are reviewed by civilian appeal judges. 

There are recognized factors that relate to military activity such as the requirement to maintain discipline, the fact that more senior members may carry more responsibility than more junior ones for the same act, etc, but there is absolutely no input from the chain of command about these issues.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Agreed, for conviction I'm sure they do, but I'm having issues with the sentencing here, and I am pretty sure that "the law" has no reprimands as a sentencing tool.
> 
> Though like you said, it would be prudent to see what the JAG website says.



I'm not sure how you can have an issue with the sentence when you do not yet know of what actual circumstances the cadet was convicted of. If he was a first offender (and I assume as a cadet he probably was) and in the case of a simple assault, a $2,000 fine is not an unusual sentence for a civilian. Very few people go to jail on a simple assault. 

You are right that a civilian would not face a severe reprimand. This sentence is disciplinary in character and is:

"intended to reflect a sanction against misconduct related to the rank and status of the offender. The punishments of a severe reprimand and a reprimand are intended to stand out as a blemish on the career record of the offender. In imposing this punishment recognition should be given to the place which these punishments hold on the scale of punishments. A severe reprimand is higher on the scale of punishments than a reprimand. They are both higher on the scale of punishments than fines and minor punishments. They are not subject to automatic removal from the member's conduct sheet after one year."

In other words the court has indicated some extreme censure here as the next higher punishment would be a form of detention (actually reduction in rank and loss of seniority fall between detention and severe reprimand but those aren't much of an option with a cadet) Quite frankly his career is probably toast.

 :cheers:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Consider something else in this sentence. An Officer Cadet makes, what? About $18,000 per year?

He was fined 1/9th of his annual salary. For say, a Major, to get an equivalent fine would  be something over $10,000 dollars. Have ever heard of a fine that large? Me neither. The Judge threw the book at him, relative to what he was charged with.

To speak nothing of what admin action he is probably facing, too. He is probably going to be shortly out of a job, too, if I don't miss my guess.


----------



## Underway

RMC as a school is no different than any other university in many ways.  As a mature student currently attending a Civi U there are unfortunately plenty of similar "assaults" that take place in residences and across campus.  This is why campuses have emergency phones and dozens of help organizations.  I can't speak to the culture of RMC directly or whether the incidences of this sort of behaviour is higher or lower than Civi U but I can say that because the military tracks this stuff and deals with it in house it becomes public record.  At a Civi institution this sort of thing becomes part of the legal system and after the initial rumour mill disappears off the radar.

Admin action is comming for this OCdt.  He's going to be released from RMC or at the very least be on CMP.  Officer like quality complete failure.  RMC has ways to remove cadets (chit system if I recall) and its far easier to do at this stage of their career than after they graduate, when the institution is now responsible for them.  As he's been found guilty I wouldn't be surprised if he's out relatively quickly.

As for why this Speaker was treated badly I can tell you here's what likely happened for some of the students:
- cadets were told they would LOSE their weekend for this seminar.  People HATE that, esp students who are managed so tightly throughout the week with every minute accounted for.
- they do some google fu on this speaker and find all her twitter, FB and political posts, angering them more.  Some automatically have it in for her now no matter what she says as they see her as pushing some sort of message that they don't like.
- being university students they have decided that she's going to be challenged, they are going to argue and disagree and push her to defend her point of view
- being young they don't know how to do the above in a polite way or know when to shut up when they are getting upset
- they go to the lecture but here is the main issue with RMC  -  the senior students are in charge of the Jr students.  I guarantee no one from Sgt or above showed up to this thing.  Right off the bat you have the blind leading the blind.  One RSM, Capt or Sgt would have just had to stand up and glare down one disrespectful comment and this probably would have been shut down.  What are you gonna do if you are a senior student?  Try to shut down your peers and then face the consequences?  No chance.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I do a lot of public speaking for my job and it continues to be one of the toughest things I have ever done. One mistake, and the audience can turn on you like a pack of wild dogs. Of course, in such situations, the worst thing is that you have no one to blame but yourself. 

It sounds like she may have missed a few of these 'lessons learned':

http://www.genardmethod.com/blog-detail/view/110/the-10-biggest-public-speaking-errors-and-how-to-avoid-them#.VWiTGE13vF8


----------



## dapaterson

From the ongoing court-martial in Kingston, a second individual is testifying.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/cadet-raped-her-royal-military-college-dorm-officer-testifies


----------



## pbi

Underway said:
			
		

> ...they go to the lecture but here is the main issue with RMC  -  the senior students are in charge of the Jr students.  I guarantee no one from Sgt or above showed up to this thing.  Right off the bat you have the blind leading the blind.  One RSM, Capt or Sgt would have just had to stand up and glare down one disrespectful comment and this probably would have been shut down.  What are you gonna do if you are a senior student?  Try to shut down your peers and then face the consequences?  No chance.



This is my concern (admittedly knowing very little about what happened): where was the military leadership of the College? If they were there, and did nothing, then I'm not so sure I would go after the cadets: maybe the military leadership are the ones needing their chains jerked. If they weren't there, it's not much better. When you send the troops out to do something that you know they really, really don't want to do (especially on a weekend!), in my experience you better be there along with them.

But, as has been noted a few times now, most of us on this page probably don't know what really happened.


----------



## mariomike

pbi said:
			
		

> But, as has been noted a few times now, most of us on this page probably don't know what really happened.



Reminds me of something Tao Te Ching reportedly said.  

 'Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.'


----------



## Edward Campbell

pbi said:
			
		

> This is my concern (admittedly knowing very little about what happened): where was the military leadership of the College? If they were there, and did nothing, then I'm not so sure I would go after the cadets: maybe the military leadership are the ones needing their chains jerked. If they weren't there, it's not much better. _When you send the troops out to do something that you know they really, really don't want to do (especially on a weekend!), in my experience you better be there along with them._
> 
> But, as has been noted a few times now, most of us on this page probably don't know what really happened.




 :bravo: Exactly!!!


----------



## The Bread Guy

pbi said:
			
		

> *When you send the troops out to do something that you know they really, really don't want to do (especially on a weekend!), in my experience you better be there along with them.*


QFTFT


----------



## Jungle

Underway said:
			
		

> - they go to the lecture but here is the main issue with RMC  -  the senior students are in charge of the Jr students.  I guarantee no one from Sgt or above showed up to this thing.  Right off the bat you have the blind leading the blind.



The asylum where the inmates are in charge... This is also known as _carte blanche_, or the absence of leadership.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ok- look, NO!

It is a relatively recent phenomenon that the Cadet Wing at the military colleges were not (fairly) self regulating- ie the more senior cadets were responsible for leading and disciplining the more junior cadets.

It was not a perfect system and more than a few eggs got broken in process, but by and large the cadets rose to the challenge and led each other in an acceptable, and often, exemplary fashion.

Then, about 20 years ago, someone decided that was "too risky", and injected all sorts of leadership and supervision on the Cadet Wing and removed much of their responsibility. What do you suppose happened next?

The Cadets stopped giving a crap about leadership and discipline because it was someone else's job, that's what. Think about your own units and situations.  Which do you prefer- being given a free hand and lots of responsibility (and being held accountable) or being micromanaged?

This is not rocket science. The Cadets at RMCC could be leading troops in combat in as little as 4 years after walking in the door. Had we not be making them practice leading from day one?


----------



## Jungle

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This is not rocket science. The Cadets at RMCC could be leading troops in combat in as little as 4 years after walking in the door. Had we not be making them practice leading from day one?



Yes, with a Warrant Officer by their side, and a group of Sgts and Mcpls to command the sections in the platoon. If a qualified young platoon commander is not left to his own device, I can't see why we would do it with even younger, potential future platoon commanders.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ok- look, NO!
> 
> It is a relatively recent phenomenon that the Cadet Wing at the military colleges were not (fairly) self regulating- ie the more senior cadets were responsible for leading and disciplining the more junior cadets.
> 
> It was not a perfect system and more than a few eggs got broken in process, but by and large the cadets rose to the challenge and led each other in an acceptable, and often, exemplary fashion.
> 
> Then, about 20 years ago, someone decided that was "too risky", and injected all sorts of leadership and supervision on the Cadet Wing and removed much of their responsibility. What do you suppose happened next?
> 
> The Cadets stopped giving a crap about leadership and discipline because it was someone else's job, that's what. Think about your own units and situations.  Which do you prefer- being given a free hand and lots of responsibility (and being held accountable) or being micromanaged?
> 
> This is not rocket science. The Cadets at RMCC could be leading troops in combat in as little as 4 years after walking in the door. Had we not be making them practice leading from day one?



Ridiculous. And negligent IMHO.

Sandhurst has similar 'Cadet Government' system and it works very well for self-managing the organization.


----------



## Strike

Has anyone not thought that maybe, just maybe, the speaker asked that no staff be present?  Kind of like Padre Power Hour?  After all, when staff are there, the students are less likely to bring up any taboo subjects.  So we can harp on the staff all we want, but we just don't know what the speaker asked.


----------



## Old Sweat

Strike may have a point, but if this was at the request of the speaker, it indicates a level of not understanding her audience that is quite astounding. 

If the Cadet Wing is supposed to police itself, is this the time to fire the Cadet Wing Commander. He or she did not maintain good order and discipline and surely has lost the confidence of the Commandant and his chain of command. 

Note, if it was not glaringly obvious by now, I did not attend any of the service colleges, so I am speaking as an outsider about matters.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Strike said:
			
		

> Has anyone not thought that maybe, just maybe, the speaker asked that no staff be present?


If this was the case:
1)  The "self-managing" cadets still appear to have been less than fully "self-managed".
2)  Is it still OK for troops to get out of line when their bosses aren't around?


----------



## Jarnhamar

There's something I read that I don't understand.   A cadet made a complaint of  sexual nature and then quickly withdrew the complaint. (The guy was taken out of class then had his privileges reinstated).

Why wouldn't the chain of command behave like the police? If someone makes a complaint then they follow it up regardless if the complainant changes their mind. ie the whole my husband/wife hit me but I don't want to press charges anymore.

Wouldn't the chain of command want to know what was going on and why someone made a complaint then changed their mind?


----------



## medicineman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Strike may have a point, but if this was at the request of the speaker, it indicates a level of not understanding her audience that is quite astounding.



Of course this is the cynic in me talking, but knowing some history of how much this person likes to listen to herself speak and perhaps cause a fuss, maybe she did exactly understand her audience and had the staff not attend with the sole purpose of these people "proving her point" for her?

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Strike

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If this was the case:
> 1)  The "self-managing" cadets still appear to have been less than fully "self-managed".
> 2)  Is it still OK for troops to get out of line when their bosses aren't around?



Not arguing any of those points.  Just rebutting the comments others were making wondering where the staff was at.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I know the speaker _may_ have asked staff to stay away, but, were it my unit:

     1. Given that I ordered my people to parade for a briefing on a weekend; and

          2. Unless the speaker was a known quantity, like a military chaplain; then

               3. I and my RSM and my sub-unit officers commanding and their sergeants major would all have been there, too.

A guest _might_ ask to speak to a group without the presence of superiors but it is my _*command*_ decision to grant that _request_, or not.


----------



## pbi

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I know the speaker _may_ have asked staff to stay away, but, were it my unit:
> 
> 1. Given that I ordered my people to parade for a briefing on a weekend; and
> 
> 2. Unless the speaker was a known quantity, like a military chaplain; then
> 
> 3. I and my RSM and my sub-unit officers commanding and their sergeants major would all have been there, too.
> 
> A guest _might_ ask to speak to a group without the presence of superiors but it is my _*command*_ decision to grant that _request_, or not.



This is what I meant.


----------



## Jungle

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I know the speaker _may_ have asked staff to stay away, but, were it my unit:
> 
> 1. Given that I ordered my people to parade for a briefing on a weekend; and
> 
> 2. Unless the speaker was a known quantity, like a military chaplain; then
> 
> 3. I and my RSM and my sub-unit officers commanding and their sergeants major would all have been there, too.
> 
> A guest _might_ ask to speak to a group without the presence of superiors but it is my _*command*_ decision to grant that _request_, or not.



Exactly; it comes down to the basic leadersip principle that "one can delegate authority, but cannot delegate responsibility".


----------



## McG

The Ombudsman office weighs in, apparently setting the narrative for it to become the independent investigative panel.


> *Message from the Ombudsman*
> Clarifying Office’s Mandate on Sexual Harassment and Assault
> 28 May 2015
> 
> The Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces was established in 1998 under Ministerial authority in large part as a response to media reports of sexual assaults and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces. However, the first Ombudsman, the Department of National Defence and the government of the day negotiated a mandate that excluded the powers necessary to look into individual sexual harassment and assault issues.
> 
> Since then, every appointed Ombudsman has urged that the Office’s mandate be legislated to allow for broader powers beyond those currently granted by the Minister of National Defence. Maybe it is time.
> 
> Despite limited powers to assist victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, the Ombudsman’s Office remains the only organization independent of the military chain of command and civilian management that is able to provide oversight and ensure procedural fairness in cases of reported sexual harassment. Granted that our ability to assist is restricted – particularly with regard to alleged sexual assault, which is a serious criminal matter requiring police investigation – we nevertheless help victims of alleged assaults by ensuring that they are referred to the appropriate police, medical and counselling services.
> 
> In cases of sexual harassment, with the permission of the complainant we can engage the chain of command to inform them we will be tracking how the case is handled through existing departmental and military mechanisms on the member’s behalf. This is an important oversight to ensure procedural fairness for the individual.
> 
> The recent Deschamps Report contained an assertion that the Ombudsman’s Office, in the opinion of Justice Deschamps, is not the place where victims of alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault should go. The fact remains that there are no other independent organizations where those affected feel they can go.
> 
> Of note, my Office has consistently flagged concerns that sexual harassment incidence rates were being significantly understated by both the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence. In 2012, we testified twice on this issue before the Status of Women’s Parliamentary Committee.
> 
> During the November 22, 2012 Committee hearing, a senior National Defence official testified that there was a (founded) sexual harassment incidence rate of just one case per year for the entire department and Canadian Forces over the previous 10 year period. During the December 4, 2012 Committee hearing, this Office’s acting Director General of Operations stated there was a disconnect between departmental reporting and actual incidence rates. He referred to Canadian Forces harassment survey results, which showed that 14% of women felt they were sexually harassed – a huge contrast to the number that is actually reported. He explained that a fear of reprisal, delays in complaint processing, and lack of real consequence for wrongdoing were reasons people do not come forward on alleged sexual harassment.
> 
> The fear of re-victimization on the part of sexual assault victims has been well documented in Canadian society in general. Clearly, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence need to do far more to combat the problem within its own ranks. Canadian Armed Forces leadership has acknowledged as much in their response to the Deschamps Report.
> 
> Given that individual case files are held by the Ombudsman’s Office in strict confidence – one of the key tenets of any Ombudsman’s Office – I was not able to participate in Madame Deschamps anecdotal review of the experiences of individual members of the Canadian Forces. I explained those reasons in a letter I sent to her on November 7, 2014. I did provide statistical data, however.
> 
> As Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces I do not have an advocacy role for individuals. I do, however, advocate fairness for both individual and institution alike. Impartiality and independence are vital to being effective. With 17 years of proven success in helping resolve more than 20,000 cases – many of which were complex – my Office stands ready to assist the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence to whatever level is required, in order to improve the way individuals with sexual harassment and assault allegations are treated.
> 
> Statistics  - Since January 1, 2007, the Ombudsman’s Office responded to 586 contacts related to harassment, 31 of which related specifically to sexual harassment.
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Walbourne
> Ombudsman


http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-news-events-messages/clarify-mandate-sexual-assault-harassment.page


----------



## pbi

MCG said:
			
		

> The Ombudsman office weighs in, apparently setting the narrative for it to become the independent investigative panel.http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-news-events-messages/clarify-mandate-sexual-assault-harassment.page



Well, probably the best outcome of a range of bad ones.


----------



## McG

I suppose so.


----------



## a_majoor

Well, it certainly didn't take long to go down the road US colleges and Universities are already on.

There misleading "statistics" about rape and sexual assault there were used to set up "star chambers" where allegations of assault and rape are heard, often without the accused knowing the facts, being allowed representation or the ability to defend themselves. This is even more egregious given that rape is a felony crime in the United States, and anyone accused of such an offence outside of any US college or university is given their full due process rights, not to mention the complaint is investigated by professionally trained police investigators. Say what you will about the US police or justice system, it is still orders of magnitude more professional and competent than a bunch of university administrators in conducting investigations and making determinations of guilt or innocence.

For the previous Canadian example of loss of due process rights and making a mockery of "justice", one only has to look at the so called Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals. 

Lets face it, while there is no excuse for sexual misconduct, there is also no excuse for creating "narratives" or eliminating people's due process rights. If the CoC is presented an allegation of a crime (and rape and sexual abuse are indeed crimes), then turn the investigation over to the competent authority: the Police. You could argue that the specific force should be the NIS, RCMP or local force that the base/unit is resident of, but that is splitting hairs.

It is far past time the military stops being a bunching bag for whatever cause de jour is out there. The Military CoC should tell the Ombudsman and all the other "agencies" eager to expand their powers to stuff it; criminal investigations will be carried out by competent authorities, not self appointed "star chambers". The 1-800 chain of command nonsense has caused far more confusion and thrown more sand in the gears rather than "solve" any problems that I can see. We know what works, use the tools that exist properly.


----------



## McG

Its a little bit hyperbole to suggest anyone is losing their right to due process or procedural fairness.  There is nothing to substantiate an accusation that we are going toward any such construct.  

Not all sexual misconduct nor sexual harassment is criminal, so potential incidents cannot be left (as you suggest) with only criminal investigation as a path to resolution.


----------



## OldSolduer

pbi said:
			
		

> Well, probably the best outcome of a range of bad ones.



Better than a new org headed by BGen (Ret'd) Bloggins.


----------



## pbi

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, it certainly didn't take long to go down the road US colleges and Universities are already on....
> 
> For the previous Canadian example of loss of due process rights and making a mockery of "justice", one only has to look at the so called Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals... It is far past time the military stops being a bunching bag for whatever cause de jour is out there. The Military CoC should tell the Ombudsman and all the other "agencies" eager to expand their powers to stuff it; criminal investigations will be carried out by competent authorities, not self appointed "star chambers". The 1-800 chain of command nonsense has caused far more confusion and thrown more sand in the gears rather than "solve" any problems that I can see. We know what works, use the tools that exist properly.



I don't understand your point here. Who says any of this is actually happening? It actually looks like we're not going down the road of doing this sort of "Sexual Inquisition", thank God.

While I agree that the CAF is often the target of axe-grinders (both internal and external), I would also say that it is long, *LONG*, past time when the CAF should have learned that the way to deal with this sort of stuff (or any nasty business), is to go ugly early. Be completely forthright, hit the media first before they hit you, take responsibility, get the facts, protect the innocent and punish the guilty in an exemplary way. 

Anything else will blow up in the CAF's face, thus reinforcing the self-fulfilling prophecy that "everybody hates us".


----------



## daftandbarmy

MCG said:
			
		

> Its a little bit hyperbole to suggest anyone is losing their right to due process or procedural fairness.  There is nothing to substantiate an accusation that we are going toward any such construct.
> 
> Not all sexual misconduct nor sexual harassment is criminal, so potential incidents cannot be left (as you suggest) with only criminal investigation as a path to resolution.



As always, one of the biggest problems with SA cases is that the 'accused' are frequently tried in the court of public opinion and their reputations left in tatters before they've had their day in court. If you could prevent that from happening (all too frequently) in some way my bet is that you would have a better overall result for everyone involved.


----------



## a_majoor

While this is the example of what is happening in the US, I am pretty sure this sort of thing will be the "model" for whatever process is being contemplated here. And as noted above, people will be "tried in the court of public opinion" and have theirr reputations attacked as well, ssomething which may never be fully "repaired" even if the person involved is exonerated. And this system, BTW, is already in place for the "Human Rights" comissions and tribunals, so you only have to look in that diorection to see where things go seriously wrong for anyone caught in that system:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-02/campus-justice-punished-until-proven-innocent



> *Campus Justice: Punished Until Proven Innocent*
> Jun 2, 2015 9:00 AM EDT
> By Megan McArdle
> 
> In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern, wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education in which she decried the creeping bureaucratization and fear that surrounds sexual activity on campus. Last week, she revealed that as a consequence of that article, she had been investigated for violating Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> No, I'm not eliding some intermediate step, where she used printed copies of the article as a cudgel to attack her female students. The article itself was the suspect act. According to Kipnis, it was seen as retaliation against students who had filed complaints against a professor, and would have a "chilling effect" and create a "hostile environment" for women in the Northwestern community. Northwestern put Kipnis through a lengthy process in which she wasn't allowed to know the nature of the complaint until she talked to investigators, nor could she have representation.
> 
> But the process worked, says Justin Weinberg, because Kipnis was eventually exonerated. Weinberg, who teaches philosophy, also thinks it's "not obvious" that writing an article about an ongoing complaint, which does not mention either the students or professors by name, is retaliation under Title IX. Like Brian Leiter, I find his summation of the facts underwhelming, and as Leiter says, "If Kipnis's opinion piece about sexual paranoia on campus, in which the graduate student is not even named and barely referenced, constitutes adverse 'treatment,' then there is no right for any faculty member at any institution receiving federal funds to offer any opinions, however indirect, about any question surrounding allegations of sexual misconduct at the institution."
> 
> But I'll let Leiter argue with Weinberg about the case itself, because I want to take issue with this passage: "As I noted earlier, the Title IX investigation yielded no finding of retaliation against Kipnis. One can only imagine how disappointed she will be with this. It turns out that the process she had been demonizing—which of course may have its flaws—pretty much worked, from her point of view."
> 
> I think this is deeply wrong, and for all that, it is not an uncommon sentiment. You often hear this sort of argument when people complain about the byzantine procedures that colleges use to adjudicate charges of a racial or sexual nature, or when they argue that we should always presumptively believe any rape accusation: "Well, if they didn't do that, the system will figure it out eventually, so what's the big deal?"
> 
> This ignores the fact that the process itself can become the punishment. Sexual assault, racial harassment and similar crimes are serious charges, that should be treated seriously. This makes being charged with such an offense a very big deal for the accused. The judicial process is time consuming, often confusing, and scary. The accused may need to pay for legal advice, even though they often aren't allowed to take counsel into the system with them. Then there's the worry of knowing that however crazy the charge sounds to you, the campus judicial process may have very different ideas.
> 
> The campus system is, in its own way, especially punishing: The accused has limited rights, the system is opaque, and it's hard to even know how other cases get resolved. The system cannot send you to jail, but it can expel you with a mark on your permanent transcript that will make it harder to get admitted elsewhere, or if you work for the school, start the wheels in motion to get you fired. These are not small punishments. Some of the system's defenders say it does not need the same due process standards as a legal charge would, because it can't result in prison time. But I doubt these defenders would be so sanguine about this Kafkaesque process if it were directed at them, threatening their futures.
> 
> So if we do not attempt to weed out frivolous charges early in the process -- for example, by firmly telling graduate students that they do not have a blanket right to keep their professors from mentioning public charges the students have filed -- then we create a weapon that can be used against anyone you dislike, or disagree with. Courts are well aware of this problem, which is one reason that they try hard to throw out frivolous lawsuits as quickly as possible. It's also why they have all those protections around due process and transparency that campus judicial systems have abandoned. Not to mention a higher standard of evidence for a conviction.
> 
> Kipnis's case should have been dropped for the same reason that a court would grant a motion for summary judgment: because even if all the allegations were true, "writing about a case in a way I dislike" is not an act of abuse from which students need to be protected. Now, perhaps Northwestern felt that it could not dismiss the claim so swiftly, because the laws and regulations surrounding civil rights gave them no alternative but to stage a full investigation. In that case, the problem is the same, but the fault lies one level higher, with the bureaucracy that has told schools to put every single accused person through the wringer, no matter how outlandish the charge. This is obviously not good for the individuals accused. But it's also not healthy for the community or for its justice system.
> 
> To contact the author on this story:
> Megan McArdle at mmcardle3@bloomberg.net
> 
> To contact the editor on this story:
> Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest, from the new*** Commandant - highlights mine:


> “Officer Cadets at the Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC) are young Canadians that must learn and embrace the ethos of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the military values of duty, loyalty, integrity and courage. RMCC provides them the training and education upon which their service commitment to Canada is founded.
> 
> “As future leaders of the CAF and as students in a post-secondary institution, we expect our Officer Cadets to demonstrate respect and attentiveness at all times. We place the highest priority on proper conduct and maintaining a positive environment based on respect and trust that is free from harassment and discrimination.
> 
> “Any allegation of sexual misconduct at RMCC concerns me greatly and we are disturbed by recent such allegations. Sexual misconduct is reprehensible and completely antithetical to the values we hold in the military. While the overwhelming majority of Officer Cadets uphold our strong values, even one incident is unacceptable. I am committed to ensuring that we are doing all that we can to inculcate the highest values, ethics and conduct norms.
> 
> “To this end, *RMCC has incorporated focussed harassment and sexual misconduct training and will further advance this training for the fall session as part of our Sexual Misconduct and Harassment Prevention Response Plan. In addition, the CAF Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct, led by Lieutenant-General Chris Whitecross, will be visiting RMCC in the fall as part of their cross-country town hall series to raise awareness of inappropriate sexual behaviour in the CAF and to outline the action plan developed in response to the External Review Authority’s Report on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment. I look forward to hearing feedback from this team, and from staff, faculty and Officer Cadets, so that we can continue to improve our resilience to the serious issue of sexual misconduct.*
> 
> “We will continue to hold offenders accountable and ensure leaders, supervisors and bystanders fulfill their duties when it comes to responding to incidents or concerns. Effective, caring and compassionate victim support services will continue to be available. I am committed to ensuring RMCC is an institution Canadians can continue to be proud of.”
> 
> Brigadier-General Sean Friday



*** - The 6 June 2015 statement says "new," but I don't know how "new" the Commandant in question is.


----------



## yoman

The Change of Command was on May 22nd.


----------



## cupper

Apparently the CDS believes that we are are all biologically programmed to be d__kheads.  :facepalm:

*Military sexual misconduct due to 'biological wiring,' Gen. Tom Lawson says*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-misconduct-due-to-biological-wiring-gen-tom-lawson-says-1.3115993



> Sexual harassment is still an issue in the Canadian Forces because people are "biologically wired in a certain way," according to Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with CBC's chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge, airing tonight on The National, Lawson said the "terrible issue" of military sexual harassment "disturbs the great majority of everyone in uniform and yet, we're still dealing with it."
> 
> "It would be a trite answer, but it's because we're biologically wired in a certain way and there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others. It's not the way it should be," he said.
> 
> "Much as we would very much like to be absolutely professional in everything we do, and I think by and large we are, there will be situations and have been situations where, largely, men will see themselves as able to press themselves onto our women members."
> 
> In April, a searing report by Marie Deschamps, a retired Supreme Court justice, said sexual misconduct is "endemic" in the Canadian military.
> 
> Deschamps laid blame on a pervasive macho culture where the leadership tolerates abuse and leaves women in fear of reporting it.
> 
> Lawson admitted the culture needs to change.
> 
> "We are going to tackle that. We've been successful in tackling other cultures," he said, adding that the Armed Forces are "well on their way."
> 
> There are currently at least two courts martial ongoing in relation to incidents of sexual assault and harassment at the Royal Military College, one incident alleged to have taken place just last month.
> 
> "Why would a male cadet decide that they could treat one of the female cadets like that?" Lawson said.
> 
> "We believe that's a little bit of biological wiring and inappropriate behaviour."
> 
> Lawson is stepping down as Canada's top general in September. He will be replaced by Lt.-Gen. Jonathan Vance, currently the commander of the Canadian Joint Operations Command.


----------



## medicineman

Just deleted something that a serving member shouldn't say publicly about the CDS...


----------



## cavalryman

medicineman said:
			
		

> Just deleted something that a serving member shouldn't say publicly about the CDS...


Makes me glad I've hung up the soldier suit.  The change of CDS can't come soon enough  :facepalm:


----------



## ajuks nerrad

medicineman said:
			
		

> Just deleted something that a serving member shouldn't say publicly about the CDS...



Did you delete my post where I said Vance might be CDS sooner than we think? Yes I'm serving and yes I stand by that.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"It would be a trite answer, but it's because we're biologically wired in a certain way and there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others. It's not the way it should be," he said.

I see nothing to disagree with:
1) we're biologically wired in a certain way
2) there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others
3) It's not the way it should be


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ajuks nerrad said:
			
		

> Did you delete my post where I said Vance might be CDS sooner than we think? Yes I'm serving and yes I stand by that.



I did.....it was jibberish.


----------



## ajuks nerrad

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I did.....it was jibberish.



In that case I am done posting at this forum.

Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Maybe try it with some information and context so people know what the heck you're talking about.

However, good day.


----------



## dapaterson

How the Commander of the Australian Army addressed this two years ago:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U&feature=youtu.be

"Those who think that its okay to behave in a way that demeans and exploits their colleagues have no place in the army"


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How the Commander of the Australian Army addressed this two years ago:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U&feature=youtu.be
> 
> "Those who think that its okay to behave in a way that demeans and exploits their colleagues have no place in the army"



Yep, the former Chief of Army (he retired a month ago) really pulled no punches on that one.

Also, an interview of that after he retired:

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2015/s4239099.htm


----------



## Loachman

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "It would be a trite answer, but it's because we're biologically wired in a certain way and there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others. It's not the way it should be," he said.
> 
> I see nothing to disagree with:
> 1) we're biologically wired in a certain way
> 2) there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others
> 3) It's not the way it should be



I concur.

He could, perhaps, have worded this idea better, but he is not wrong.

There are those in society who have not quite evolved as much as they should have, and whatever upbringing, education, and training that they have received has been failed to overcame this shortcoming.


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "It would be a trite answer, but it's because we're biologically wired in a certain way and there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others. It's not the way it should be," he said.
> 
> I see nothing to disagree with:
> 1) we're biologically wired in a certain way
> 2) there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others
> 3) It's not the way it should be



He's right. It could have been better worded. I've been saying similar things for years now. I just don't use the media as my audience.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If it's not an excuse then why even bring it up?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "It would be a trite answer, but it's because we're biologically wired in a certain way and there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others. It's not the way it should be," he said.
> 
> I see nothing to disagree with:
> 1) we're biologically wired in a certain way
> 2) there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others
> 3) It's not the way it should be



And my troops are biologically wired to execute their prisoners immediately following the assault because their adrenaline levels are, like, way up there and after all who can judge, like, anyone that stoked, right?

 :sarcasm:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Actually, many of them are. What keeps them from doing so is effective discipline.


----------



## brihard

I'm just gonna C&P my reply from elsewhere, regarding Gen. Lawson's comment:


 I would contend it's not entirely inaccurate. Starting from the premise that one beleives in natural selection, we are biologically identical to humans some tens of thousands of years ago, where might quite literally made right, and where our (human) recently evolved intelligence was coupled with statistically greater physical strength in males, yet untempered by our most recent hundred years of intellectually based social progress. Biologically we are the same creatures who would kill other males and seize females as prizes. Humanity, fortunately, has developed well past the point where most consider this consciounable or acceptable. I firmly beleive that every human being is of equal worth and dignity. But to say that we are 'hard wired' carries a degree of biological truth.

Let's not kid ourselves. The military has some fucking neanderthals. It's an organization that simultaneosuly attracts some of the best of Canadian society, and some of our boderline failures who are canny enough to see a solid career opportunity that can accommodate modest intellects with much to be modest about. Sexual abuse and harassment is a SOCIETAL problem. The military is at once a microcosm of society, and a distillation of some portions thereof. We cultivate and nurture controlled violence, and that will attract the same alpha males who excel at wielding coercive force, but who must be carefully disciplined in many other respects. 

I'm not saying this as a slur on my own sex or gender, it just is what it is. I've met and worked with many shitty women too, some of whom were atrocious human beings. It's not just a male thing. But shittiness in males is correlated with a statistically much more abundant physical strength and social dominance. So yeah, there will be problems of the 'boys will be boys' variety. My take? Neuter them. And if you're a leader in the military who fails to act, you're a miserable failure at your job and should be fired with disgrace. But no amount of prevention can cure all disease, we must be realistic about it.

General Lawson spoke candidly and with a certain degree of reckless ballsiness that I respect. He called it like it is and of course was only partially quoted out of political expediency. But I watched the whole interview and he is not out to lunch.


----------



## The Bread Guy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> What keeps them from doing so is effective discipline.


For the WIN!

Well, THAT didn't take long - _"Statement by the Chief of the Defence Staff"_....


> “I apologize for my awkward characterization, in today’s CBC interview, of the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Sexual misconduct in any form, in any situation is clearly unacceptable.
> 
> “My reference to biological attraction being a factor in sexual misconduct was by no means intended to excuse anyone from responsibility for their actions.
> 
> “I am committed, alongside Canadian Armed Forces leadership, to addressing the issue of sexual misconduct through an action plan based on the ten recommendations provided in Madame Deschamps’ report.”


----------



## jollyjacktar

I feel for the CDS, no matter how or what he say's on the subject it will be taken out of context by some and he'll be beaten over the head with it.


----------



## Remius

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I feel for the CDS, no matter how or what he say's on the subject it will be taken out of context by some and he'll be beaten over the head with it.



I don't.  It's his job to manage these issues and be the face of the CF when facing the public as well as managing the message.  He didn't mange the message very well last night.  At all.  Blame the handlers, blame the media.  Ultimately it's on him.  I don't envy his job and I respect the office he holds but that was a complete failure.


----------



## GAP

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't.  It's his job to manage these issues and be the face of the CF when facing the public as well as managing the message.  He didn't mange the message very well last night.  At all.  Blame the handlers, blame the media.  Ultimately it's on him.  I don't envy his job and I respect the office he holds but that was a complete failure.



That's quite a shot from the cheap seats.......Brihard got it about right. 

The CDS mouthing poilite platitudes does nothing the help the situation and diminishes any structure to stop the Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct being done by members of the CF.

Understanding the motivations and mentality of the culprits has the chance to reduce the  occurrences...


----------



## Remius

GAP said:
			
		

> That's quite a shot from the cheap seats.......Brihard got it about right.
> 
> The CDS mouthing poilite platitudes does nothing the help the situation and diminishes any structure to stop the Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct being done by members of the CF.
> 
> Understanding the motivations and mentality of the culprits has the chance to reduce the  occurrences...



Unfortunately the  people who sit in the cheap seats will have to put up with the stares and comments on their way to work this morning because of those comments.

The fact that there was an almost immediate apology is telling.  The reaction across the country is telling as well and this only fuels those that have a gripe against the CF to begin with.

I agree that polite platitudes do nothing to help but what was said during that interview certainly didn't help the situation either.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## TCM621

He made us look like animals.  I feel incredibly let down and betrayed. He is the face of the CF and should look after our interests. Instead he threw us to the wolves.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

In my view, it is not the job of a CDS to mouth polite platitudes. That is for politicians.

The CDS doesn't get to talk directly to his real constituency, the uniformed personnel of the CF, very often. He should avail himself of those rare opportunities to come across as he should: The CF's top leader - not as a politician. Be clear. Be direct. Come clean and inspire. Those should be his leitmotivs.

How easy would it have been to say:

1. In the profession of arms, we are all brother and sisters in arm, and to do anything to your brother and sister that you wouldn't do in your real family is totally unacceptable.

2. This said, we are dealing with young and healthy Canadian men and women and so we know that there will always be some romantic entanglements. As long as they are at the appropriate time and place and between consenting adults, members of the CF enjoy the same rights and freedom as all other Canadians.

3. However, any unwanted or inappropriate action is unacceptable and members are now being reminded throughout the CF that such behaviour will not be tolerated and will be dealt with through our disciplinary system.

4. Many years ago, at the time of the introduction of women in combat, we expected some difficulties and we put in place policies and practices to deal with the situation and adapt the then prevailing mentalities. After 10 to 15 years, we evaluated that we had the situation under control. We were wrong. 

5. As Mme Deschamps' report just showed, we have left our guard down too long and the problem has made a come back. With the help of her recommendations, we will now bring things back to where they should be.

6. I note from various media reports, such as the ones on the alleged "rape" culture of colleges, of "date" rape on the dating scene or your own CBC celebrities scandals that there is a resurgence of these type of deportment in Canada's youth, not just in the military. I am, however comforted by Mme Deschamp's finding that the problem in the CF is nearly absent in the older and higher ranked members of the forces. This tells me that the message we sent many years ago has sunk in and that there is a learning curve.

7. We will now make sure our members are put on that learning curve earlier in their career and that the curve is made much steeper so they get to the acceptable standard of deportment faster.


----------



## OldSolduer

I wonder what past CDS would have said....


----------



## PuckChaser

OGBD for CDS. That's the kind of motivational but tough talk members of the CAF need to hear.


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> OGBD for CDS. That's the kind of motivational but tough talk members of the CAF need to hear.


A  good response, I agree.


----------



## Jarnhamar

People know it's wrong but they do it anyways.  Let's throw them in military prison for 2 years then punt them from the CF.  If it's found that a leader was aware of the situation and didn't properly handle it demote them.


----------



## cupper

I have to agree with Crantor on this being a failure on his part.

It's not like this question came completely unexpected out of left field. Anyone who couldn't anticipate this being a line of questioning in the interview needs to be checked for a pulse and brain activity. Surely his handlers would have rehearsed potential questions and answers before walking into the interview, at the very least to keep him from tripping over his own biological imperative.

Why even go for the nature argument.

Hell, if one of us neanderthals could come up with a decent response to that question (kudos to OGBD   ) then surely the people in the CDS's office who's job it is to ensure crap like this doesn't reach the fan could have done just as good a job. Even without piling on political platitudes.


----------



## ballz

To me, the CDS's response just shows how out of tune we are when it comes to gender equality issues.

A large part of third wave feminism (which I despise*) is _promoting_ the idea that men are above being biologically wired to be sexual predators. To reference our biology suggests that I, as a man, am just a monkey not capable of thinking past my natural biological desires for oxygen, water, food, and mating.

I think this whole report is a bit overblown on the sexual "assault" side of things, probably because it includes everything from putting your hand on the shoulder of someone else as a sexual assault if that person feels it was, or smacking someone on the *** during sports as sexual assault if that person feels it was, etc, when both acts could be in no way meant as such. Since we no longer use the word "rape," the width of things that falls under sexual assault is mind-boggling.

But, with regards to our language in particular, there is an awful lot that *is* an inappropriate reference to something sexual. For us to shy away from the fact that a lot of things that we say every day would *never* be allowed in a professional civilian workplace, or wouldn't land you in a heaping pile of crap in a civilian workplace if someone complained, means we are either deliberately sticking our head in the sand or it *is* deeply engrained in our culture. Neither one is a good reason to continue down the same path.


*Not because they are necessarily wrong, but because their solution to everything seems to be to have the government infringe on other people's freedom to force the world into behaving they want it to.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"It's not the way it should be"

Quite a few Canadians - and I am thinking maybe a couple of people here - went out of their way to overlook the above, which is the most important part.  It is the clue for the clueless: applied self-discipline and collective discipline are what separate us from our hind brains.  It is also the directive: discipline yourselves and your subordinates; pass no faults.

The special snowflakes who don't want to hear that all people have base instincts, and that some people have too little self-restraint, should be ignored.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

ballz said:
			
		

> To me, the CDS's response just shows how out of tune we are when it comes to gender equality issues.
> 
> A large part of third wave feminism (which I despise*) is _promoting_ the idea that men are above being biologically wired to be sexual predators. To reference our biology suggests that I, as a man, am just a monkey not capable of thinking past my natural biological desires for oxygen, water, food, and mating.
> 
> I think this whole report is a bit overblown on the sexual "assault" side of things, probably because it includes everything from putting your hand on the shoulder of someone else as a sexual assault if that person feels it was, or smacking someone on the *** during sports as sexual assault if that person feels it was, etc, when both acts could be in no way meant as such. Since we no longer use the word "rape," the width of things that falls under sexual assault is mind-boggling.
> 
> But, with regards to our language in particular, there is an awful lot that *is* an inappropriate reference to something sexual. For us to shy away from the fact that a lot of things that we say every day would *never* be allowed in a professional civilian workplace, or wouldn't land you in a heaping pile of crap in a civilian workplace if someone complained, means we are either deliberately sticking our head in the sand or it *is* deeply engrained in our culture. Neither one is a good reason to continue down the same path.
> 
> 
> *Not because they are necessarily wrong, but because their solution to everything seems to be to have the government infringe on other people's freedom to force the world into behaving they want it to.



I would disagree that anyone is above their makeup is to suggest that all the factors are strictly environment and not biological (though the term biological is used). Biological makeup explains a great deal of why people are the way that they are, and in many cases feminists, liberals, conservatives, and the whole gamut of people use biology as a reason to justify or explain all kinds of things (homosexuality, transexuality, beastiality, polyamorous, etc etc ad nauseum). In all of the cases listed, biology or makeup of the individual does explain why people do certain things (to various levels of social acceptance). We are not far removed from the days of homosexuality being a sexual disorder caused by environmental factors (choosing to be gay). Third wave feminists are dead wrong from that perspective.

From a biological standpoint I would agree with the CDS that people are wired the way that they are froma standpoint of sexual assault/rape in the physical sense. Certainly, persons who are going to commit rape or other sexual crimes are largely doing it because its what gives them the "thrill" vice an actual sexual need. In those cases, rapists are largely "wired that way" same as any other sexual behaviour (including heterosexuality).

From the standpoint of "sexual assault" in unwanted touching, coarse humour, crude language, etc than I disagree with the CDS adamantly. These are socialized behaviours learned from the environment and not from any physiological factors. So, changing the culture of the military in terms of the majority of the complaints in the Report comes from us as individuals and the institution. As has been stated many times, the military needs to change the culture. Leadership needs to be convinced that they must ALWAYS act, even if it tarnishes the unit. People must learn that these things are inappropriate. Both must be backed with REAL consequences (unlike drug use, which though the policy states "no tolerances" still requires multiple positives tests to kick someone out). Its 2015- we still shouldn't have stories of instructors calling candidates "gay" or people asking, "Can I still tell my troops that they run like girls as long as there aren't any women in my troop" at the MGENs HARASSMENT BRIEF (which happened in Shilo).


----------



## cupper

It's all fine, well and good to say that men are wired biologically to act that way.

But it overlooks the fact that we as a species are also wired to have impulse control, and the capacity to learn right from wrong.

The biological argument is a broad brush slapping paint an entire gender, when the problem itself is the result of an extreme minority that have diminished impulse control, and diminished capacity to learn right from wrong.

As it is, it comes at best as an excuse, and at the worst a justification for such actions. 

Adding the caveat "It's not the way it should be" doesn't help improve the argument.


----------



## cupper

With respect to the the campus rape culture meme, there is more evidence to this being more myth than reality.

*Why do high-profile campus rape stories keep falling apart?*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/06/02/why-do-high-profile-campus-rape-stories-keep-falling-apart/



> At Slate, Emily Yoffe digs into the one of the poster cases for the anti-campus rape advocacy film “The Hunting Ground” and finds some devastating flaws in how the movie portrays what happened.
> 
> [Kamilah] Willingham’s story is not an illustration of a sexual predator allowed to run loose by self-interested administrators. The record shows that what happened that night was precisely the kind of spontaneous, drunken encounter that administrators who deal with campus sexual assault accusations say is typical. (The filmmakers, who favor David Lisak’s poorly substantiated position that our college campuses are rife with serial rapists, reject the suggestion that such encounters are the source of many sexual assault allegations.) Nor is Willingham’s story an example of official indifference. Harvard did not ignore her complaints; the school thoroughly investigated them. And because of her allegations, the law school education of her alleged assailant has been halted for the past four years.
> 
> I’ll let you read Yoffe’s article to understand why the allegations against the man don’t hold up.
> 
> But this all raises an important question. I think the activists on this issue are mistaken when they say that we’re in the midst of a campus rape crisis. The data just don’t support the notion. And the studies that do have some serious flaws. The results produced by this debate are also troubling: Colleges and universities are essentially pulling an end-around the criminal justice system, adjudicating sexual assault cases on their own, on terms more favorable to the accusing party. The punishment isn’t as severe, but it can still be pretty devastating for the wrongly accused. And the guilty aren’t put away to protect society, but merely banished from campus to protect the students who pay tuition.
> 
> That said, there’s obviously no doubt that campus rape happens. The nature of the crime makes it extraordinarily difficult to assess its frequency. From the studies I’ve seen, it seems safe to say that it isn’t nearly as frequent as the one-in-five figure often raised by activists, but it happens often enough that there are likely thousands of assaults on campus every year. It’s also easy to sympathize with frustrations over how difficult rape can be to prove, especially those assaults that don’t produce any physical injury. And because rape can be so hard to prove, there’s no doubt that there are thousands of cases in which a rape actually occurred and for which the perpetrator was never disciplined, criminally, administratively or any other way.
> 
> So here’s my question: Given that there are so many legitimate incidents to choose from, why have so many high-profile cases ultimately fallen apart?
> 
> If you were to ask an average person today to name a prominent story about rape on college campuses, odds are pretty good that among the top four or five replies would be the Duke lacrosse case, the Rolling Stone cover story about Jackie and the University of Virginia, Columbia University “mattress girl” Emma Sulkowicz and one of the stories from “The Hunting Ground.” Yet in all of these stories, either the accusations were later shown to be a complete fabrication or at least serious questions were raised about them.
> 
> Each time a new high-profile story falls apart, a larger portion of the public becomes less likely to believe the next one. (It would be nice to think that we’d evaluate these stories on their own merits. But that isn’t how we tend to process contentious issues.) The anti-campus rape activists often claim that false accusations of sexual assault are practically nonexistent. (“Anti-campus rape activists” is a necessary but admittedly clumsy term. Every sane person is obviously opposed to campus rape. And even among activists who have made campus rape their issue, there is dissent and disagreement about strategy, priorities and reform.) But that so many of the accusations that they themselves have chosen as emblems of the cause have been proved false or debatable suggests that they’re either wrong about the frequency of false accusations or that the movement itself has had some extraordinarily bad luck.
> 
> Calculating the frequency of false rape accusations is even more difficult than studying the frequency of rape. Consequently, the researchers and activists who have tried have put this figure all over the map, from a fraction of a percent to as high as 40 percent. My own hunch is that they’re much more common than “almost never,” which activists claim, but nowhere nearly as common as their apparent occurrence in these high-profile cases. So why do anti-campus rape activists keep shooting themselves in the foot? Something else must be at play.
> 
> One possibility is that the nascent anti-campus rape movement isn’t as seasoned as the activist groups to whom we’ve become accustomed. We’re used to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (or if you’re familiar with it, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm) who are incredibly meticulous about vetting their poster cases. This is an unfortunate reality of successful activism: You must be very careful when choosing your victims. But there’s a big difference between always picking good cases and this uncanny record of picking bad ones. So this explanation isn’t quite satisfying.
> 
> A second explanation could just be that the cases that fell apart are the ones we remember — or, we remember them because they fell apart. There may be some truth to this. Exoneration stories certainly capture the public’s attention. But the Duke lacrosse case and the Rolling Stone story were huge national news well before skeptics began poking holes in the accusers’ stories. In fact, the earliest skeptics in these cases faced quite a bit of scorn and derision. In the case of Sulkowicz, the consensus is still probably in her favor, although the story looks much different now than when it was first reported. In the “Hunting Ground” story, Yoffe just posted her investigation today, so this explanation clearly doesn’t apply.
> 
> A third possibility was suggested by the Columbia School of Journalism’s report on the Rolling Stone story.
> 
> Last July 8, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a writer for Rolling Stone, telephoned Emily Renda, a rape survivor working on sexual assault issues as a staff member at the University of Virginia. Erdely said she was searching for a single, emblematic college rape case that would show “what it’s like to be on campus now … where not only is rape so prevalent but also that there’s this pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture,” according to Erdely’s notes of the conversation.
> 
> In other words, there’s a strong desire to find the “emblematic” case, one that checks off all the right boxes — a sympathetic victim, a privileged attacker, an indifferent administration, and so on. Real life doesn’t usually produce such clean-cut cases. So there may be an urge to bend stories to make them more sympathetic, more universal and more likely to generate outrage. Probably more to the point, this desire to seek out the perfect poster case may also make activists and their sympathizers in the press more credulous and less willing to ask questions when a story that appears to fit the bill does come along, as Jackie’s story did. For activists and sympathetic journalists alike, there’s a strong incentive to want to see a promising story (i.e. “promising” in terms of its potential to generate change) in the most favorable light, and with that, a proclivity to overlook the red flags.
> 
> Another possibility merges these two points: The alleged victims most eager to generate publicity for their stories may be the those most likely to say what activists or journalists in search of a good story want to hear. This means the stories most likely to be heard are those most in need of skepticism — and those least likely to get it. That’s a conflation of incentives that’s almost guaranteed to produce bad results.
> 
> This is obviously a very sensitive topic — but this point in particular is a delicate one, so let me be clear. This isn’t an argument that college students (and anti-rape activists in particular) never get raped. Nor is it an argument that accusations should never be believed. Nor is it an argument that rape victims should be ashamed to come forward. It’s only to say that generally speaking, an alleged victim eager to generate publicity about what happened to her may require more verification than an alleged victim who is reluctant to come forward. All else being equal, reluctant witnesses are more persuasive than eager ones. (Of course, all else is rarely equal.)
> 
> Finally, it may be that activists deliberately seek out and champion the ambiguous cases to demonstrate their commitment to the cause. This is pretty common among ideologues. (I see it often among my fellow libertarians.) You show your bona fides by taking a hard line even on those issues, incidents and scenarios that scream out for subtlety. You see this in some of the reform proposals put forth by anti-campus rape activists, such as laws requiring explicit consent before each progression of sexual activity or in staking out absurd positions such as “drunk sex is always rape.” This one seems to have been a contributing factor in the Columbia and “Hunting Ground” stories, which became accepted demonstrations of acquaintance rape despite their ambiguity. (Only recently, a Salon headline referred to Sulkowicz as a “rape survivor,” despite the fact that her alleged assailant had been cleared by a school inquiry, was never criminally charged and denies the accusation.) But it couldn’t have been a factor in the Rolling Stone and Duke lacrosse stories — there was nothing ambiguous about what was alleged in those cases.
> 
> As I wrote above, I have some real disagreements with the means with which the anti-campus rape movement wants to achieve its goals. I don’t think colleges are equipped to handle what are at heart criminal trials — nor should we ask them to take on that responsibility. But I certainly share the movement’s goals, as does any decent human being — we all want to minimize the incidence of rape, and we all want rapists to be brought to justice. The good news is that despite what you may have been led to believe, on the first objective, we’re seeing incredible progress.
> 
> But the “believe every accuser” approach to this issue is proving to be destructive to both goals. It’s obviously destructive to the men who have been wrongly accused and whose reputations and lives have been ruined. But it’s also destructive to actual victims of sexual assault. Every high-profile story that crumbles under scrutiny reinforces the perception that false accusations are common. And that only makes it more difficult to hold the real assailants accountable.


----------



## Gunner98

We are 6 years post-Col Williams' arrest, stating that sexual assault is a biological thing makes wonder what the CAF leadership has learned.  I am happy, in fact overjoyed that I took my uniform off for the last time in September 2013.  I watched enough deviant crap being swept under the rug rather than being dealt with during my career.  Leadership and role-modeling must begin at the top.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Holy shit- some people have reading comprehension issues, here.

To state the bloody obvious- that young men in general are impulsive, tend to exercise bad judgement and can be sexually aggressive-is not to excuse anyone of any bad behaviour. It is the starting point to understand how to solve the problem.

Change the culture? How much of the CF culture has a recruit absorbed in day one at the CF? Or week one? Or month one? Or year one? We don't (or shouldn't) trust new privates and OCdts very much. They should be under heavy supervision, mentorship and discipline nearly all the time. Are they? Not in my experience- we are too lazy as an institution; we want them to have normal 9-5 lives and not live in shacks (too expensive; too hard to supervise; infringes on their rights). Nobody wants to correct poor behaviour any more- you might be accused of harassment and really, it is too much work. Suddenly, we are amazed that we might have a discipline problem in the CF and that no one bothered to set (and reinforce daily) expectations of conduct and to nip bad behaviour in the bud. (Apologies to all army.ca readers who do set and enforce standards of conduct).

We are so busy building monster HQs and staffs, we forgot the basics- Training and leading junior soldiers and junior officers. That first couple of years in the CF is formative and daily has a new cohort of people who do not have the right culture. You can never relax in the recruit training business.


----------



## OldSolduer

:goodpost:

Well said SKT.


----------



## PanaEng

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Holy crap- some people have reading comprehension issues, here.
> 
> To state the bloody obvious- that young men in general are impulsive, tend to exercise bad judgement and can be sexually aggressive-is not to excuse anyone of any bad behaviour. It is the starting point to understand how to solve the problem.
> 
> Change the culture? How much of the CF culture has a recruit absorbed in day one at the CF? Or week one? Or month one? Or year one? We don't (or shouldn't) trust new privates and OCdts very much. They should be under heavy supervision, mentorship and discipline nearly all the time. Are they? Not in my experience- we are too lazy as an institution; we want them to have normal 9-5 lives and not live in shacks (too expensive; too hard to supervise; infringes on their rights). Nobody wants to correct poor behaviour any more- you might be accused of harassment and really, it is too much work. Suddenly, we are amazed that we might have a discipline problem in the CF and that no one bothered to set (and reinforce daily) expectations of conduct and to nip bad behaviour in the bud. (Apologies to all army.ca readers who do set and enforce standards of conduct).
> 
> We are so busy building monster HQs and staffs, we forgot the basics- Training and leading junior soldiers and junior officers. That first couple of years in the CF is formative and daily has a new cohort of people who do not have the right culture. You can never relax in the recruit training business.



 :cheers:


----------



## McG

The talking heads now want Gen Lawson to make a second video that is more like the one done by the Australian Army Commander in 2013.  I think it's too late for that.  I don't mean that as anything against Gen Lawson, but a second video now would seem insincere and intended to appease political pressures; a second video would not carry the weight that critics want.

Putting things in perspective, the Australian Chief of Defence Force also issued a video which was much less pointed than that of the Australian Army Commander.  Maybe CCA could fill the Canadian void with a supporting video of his own.

Gen Vance could make the desired video once he takes the CDS job, but if he were to launch his tenure with a video message to the whole CAF then I hope he would go broader and nail down his expectations of leadership and military culture (to include opposition to unprofessional, unethical, and immoral conduct)


… but, if it helps now, I know a lot of Canadian Army COs are showing both Australian videos along with the CDS & CFCWO video as part of their mandatory unit level briefings.  So, many of our troops are still getting this stronger message.  



> *Canadian brass urged to follow Australian commander's lead*
> In online video, general warns soldiers to respect women 'or get out'
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 18 June 2015
> 
> Staring straight into the camera, a visibly angry Australian Army commander tells his soldiers that he will take no prisoners when it comes to the mistreatment of women in uniform.
> 
> "I will be ruthless in ridding the army of people who cannot live up to its values," Lt.-Gen. David Morrison warns in a stern voice. "And I need every one of you to support me in achieving this."
> 
> Morrison's video, posted online in June 2013, has been viewed 1.5 million times. It's the type of message from the top that opposition politicians in Canada, and those who work on preventing sexual crimes, say is absolutely necessary - but sorely missing - from attempts to eliminate sexual misconduct in Canada's military. "That is what would restore the trust and confidence of the troops, especially those who are most affected by this toxic, sexualized culture," Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray says. "But neither the chief of defence staffnor the minister have ever had that kind of clarity and conviction on how to move forward."
> 
> Canada's top brass has repeatedly faced questions about its commitment to fighting the problem. Those doubts reached new heights this week when Chief of Defence StaffGen. Tom Lawson suggested that "biological wiring" was partly responsible for what has been described as a "hostile" sexualized culture in the military.
> 
> In an interview with the CBC Tuesday, Lawson was asked why sexual misconduct persists in the military in 2015. "It would be a trite answer," he said, "but it's because we're biologically wired in a certain way, and there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others."
> 
> The top general found himself under fire from all sides, with even Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Wednesday calling the comments "offensive, inappropriate and completely unacceptable." In response to Liberal calls for Lawson's resignation, Harper noted that Lawson is due to retire in the coming weeks.
> 
> The general, who had already apologized, did so again Wednesday during an appearance at the House of Commons defence committee with Defence Minister Jason Kenney. But Lawson also defended the military's efforts to deal with the issue, and noted the military isn't the only organization struggling with it.
> 
> "I agree there can be no excuse for sexual misconduct," Lawson said. "This is a societal problem that we see across academic institutions, police forces, perhaps even on (Parliament Hill) itself."
> 
> Lawson's commitment to tackling sexual misconduct in the ranks had previously been questioned after he referenced an internal Canadian Forces survey from 2012 that found 98.5 per cent of military members said they had not been subject to sexual misconduct. At the time, he warned against "jumping to conclusions."
> 
> The military also accepted only two of 10 recommendations made by a retired Supreme Court justice who spent a year studying the issue, while Lawson publicly wavered on the idea of creating an independent centre that would receive reports of inappropriate conduct and support victims. Kenney eventually promised the creation of such an independent body.
> 
> Morrison's video, which warned Australian soldiers to respect women "or get out," came after soldiers swapped emails showing sex acts without the women involved knowing.
> 
> The emails also contained derogatory remarks about the women. Six soldiers were fired from the Australian military, and the ringleader pleaded guilty to three charges.
> 
> Sex-assault prevention educator Julie Lalonde, who was harassed while giving a presentation at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., last year, says Morrison's message is exactly what Canadian military personnel - and the general public - needs to hear from its own leadership.
> 
> "The military is an incredibly hierarchical organization and what people at the top say and do actually has a huge impact on what people on the ground are enabled to do," she said. "What the Australian general said is incredibly strong language, and we have seen nothing, nothing of this sort in our country."
> 
> NDP defence critic Jack Harris said Morrison's "definitive statement of the values of the Australian forces and the insistence of those values is the kind of leadership we need."
> 
> "It's a good thing that Gen. Lawson is being replaced because if he was sticking around, there would always be a question of whether there will be a change," he said. "The Canadian Forces needs someone prepared to say the sort of things, and actually follow up on them, that the head of the Australian Army said."
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Jonathan Vance has been tapped to replace Lawson. Vance, who is responsible for managing all Canadian military operations, has not spoken publicly about sexual misconduct in the ranks.


----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "It's not the way it should be"
> 
> Quite a few Canadians - and I am thinking maybe a couple of people here - went out of their way to overlook the above, which is the most important part.



No one overlooked it, it is just too _weak_.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It is also the directive: discipline yourselves and your subordinates; pass no faults.



Like I said, weak. Leaders issue clear, concise, and direct messages. That is strong direction.


In contrast to the Australian Army Commander, you can easily see why one was effective and one was not. It's pretty sad that COs are showing a video of a foreign country's army commander speaking to his own troops instead of one made by our own leadership directly addressing the issue. It doesn't say much for our leadership.


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

> The talking heads now want Gen Lawson to make a second video that is more like the one done by the Australian Army Commander in 2013.  I think it's too late for that.  I don't mean that as anything against Gen Lawson, but a second video now would seem insincere and intended to appease political pressures; a second video would not carry the weight that critics want.
> 
> Putting things in perspective, the Australian Chief of Defence Force also issued a video which was much less pointed than that of the Australian Army Commander.  Maybe CCA could fill the Canadian void with a supporting video of his own.



To put some context into this, why the Australian Chief of Army put out the video first and so strongly was because it was a response to a then-recent scandal that was specifically Army (the Jedi Council if you want to look it up) which involved some fairly senior personnel.  A year or two prior, there was the Skype scandal at the ADF Academy, which there was a response but it wasn't as pointed.  Also, I can't remember if it was before or after, but there was also a thing about some Regt getting in a bit of trouble over topless bartenders at their beer calls.  Around the same time, the RAN was involved in a scandal onboard HMAS Ballarat.

In short, between the Skype scandal, HMAS Ballarat scandal, and then the Jedi Council scandal, the Australian public demanded a swift and strong response from the leaders.  It wasn't exactly a great time to be in the ADF.

Besides the fact that the horse has well and truly fled the barn, having CCA specifically put out something now would seem a little out of place.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm not a "communications" (public relations) expert ... not by any stretch of the imagination ... but, _in my opinion_, what Gen Lawson _should_ do now is just stay quiet and take his public lashing. It's going to be uncomfortable, but he stepped into it all by himself, so ...

Gen Vance can make the "right" statement about the whole military ethos, covering much more than just sexual harassment, when he takes over in a few weeks.


----------



## GAP

Just listened to the CBC "The Current" replay this evening. They had on Judy Lalond ? the female speaker at RMC that created that controversy....and from what I heard, she went in there with an attitude and an agenda and succeeded in creating one.

They the, cadets and the Senior Cadre, were set up from the get go....they could not have won.


----------



## cupper

GAP said:
			
		

> Just listened to the CBC "The Current" replay this evening. They had on Judy Lalond ? the female speaker at RMC that created that controversy....and from what I heard, she went in there with an attitude and an agenda and succeeded in creating one.
> 
> They the, cadets and the Senior Cadre, were set up from the get go....they could not have won.



I just listened to the same discussion. If you thought the DesChamps report was damning, you haven't heard jack.


----------



## McG

Is there a transcript?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

GAP said:
			
		

> Just listened to the CBC "The Current" replay this evening. They had on Judy Lalond ? the female speaker at RMC that created that controversy....and from what I heard, she went in there with an attitude and an agenda and succeeded in creating one.
> 
> They the, cadets and the Senior Cadre, were set up from the get go....they could not have won.



Julie LaLonde


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2669674272/

Was this It?


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> I just listened to the same discussion. If you thought the DesChamps report was damning, you haven't heard jack.



Maybe I am wearing a tin foil hat.....but could it be these people have an agenda?


----------



## George Wallace

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2669674272/
> 
> Was this It?



Just watched that.  Even CBC labelled her as:


> NEWS | Jun 16, 2015 | 7:22
> Woman's rights advocate....




No tinfoil hat required.  Advocate = Agenda.


----------



## MARS

And I have seen her labelled as an "activist" equally as often as "educator" or "advocate"

I question the vetting process which led the decision makers to choose her over other candidates.  I have to assume there are plenty of sexual assualt/harassment SMEs out there to chose from.


----------



## George Wallace

MARS said:
			
		

> And I have seen her labelled as an "activist" equally as often as "educator" or "advocate"
> 
> I question the vetting process which led the decision makers to choose her over other candidates.  I have to assume there are plenty of sexual assualt/harassment SMEs out there to chose from.



Good question.

Interesting that no video was shot at this 'event', as usually at any 'significant' event someone is recording it for future use.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Never ascribe to malice what simple incompetence will explain.


----------



## captloadie

In her interview she highlights the fact she has a miltary background. Maybe someone only read her CV, and didn't do a cursory web search to see what she was all about.

Or maybe the staff who organized the lecture was like minded and also was trying to push an agenda. Who knows.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MARS said:
			
		

> And I have seen her labelled as an "activist" equally as often as "educator" or "advocate"
> 
> I question the vetting process which led the decision makers to choose her over other candidates.  I have to assume there are plenty of sexual assualt/harassment SMEs out there to chose from.



Well, you can rest assured she won't have a return engagement any time soon.


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, you can rest assured she won't have a return engagement any time soon.



Never overestimate the decision makers.


----------



## jollyjacktar

captloadie said:
			
		

> In her interview she highlights the fact she has a miltary background. Maybe someone only read her CV, and didn't do a cursory web search to see what she was all about.



If, she has a military background, she doesn't mention it here on the bio she posted on line...   rly:

Julie S. Lalonde: About Me


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Never overestimate the decision makers.



True enough, they can do things that stupefy logic.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm biologically hard wired to day dream anytime I'm in a formation larger than a platoon.


----------



## George Wallace

Anyone else not of the opinion the creating a Media scandal that involves DND/CAF is the equivalent to the CAF bringing a butterknife to a gun fight?


----------



## Remius

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Anyone else not of the opinion the creating a Media scandal that involves DND/CAF is the equivalent to the CAF bringing a butterknife to a gun fight?



I'm of the opinion that the media is creating the gunfight.  There is one effective rule to a gunfight and that is to not go to a gunfight.  But if you do...

1. Bring a gun
2. Bring a second gun
3. Bring all of your friends who have guns.


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Anyone else not of the opinion the creating a Media scandal that involves DND/CAF is the equivalent to the CAF bringing a butterknife to a gun fight?



We don't use the sharpest knives in the drawer.


----------



## cupper

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2669674272/
> 
> Was this It?



No, but that was just as bad, if not worse.

Here is the interview previously referenced.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+Current/ID/2669800199/


----------



## medicineman

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion that the media is creating the gunfight.  There is one effective rule to a gunfight and that is to not go to a gunfight.  But if you do...
> 
> 1. Bring a gun
> 2. Bring a second gun
> 3. Bring all of your friends who have guns.



Dude, we're the Canadian Military - where are we going to find the live ammo?  

MM


----------



## cavalryman

medicineman said:
			
		

> Dude, we're the Canadian Military - where are we going to find the live ammo?
> 
> MM


Ask the US?


----------



## cupper

What I find curious is that Ms. LaLonde states that she is very concerned about how the person replacing General Lawson is going to address this issue, but she doesn't really seem to want to take the time to find out who that is and a what his background is, even though it has been announced for quite some time.


----------



## cupper

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Ask the US?



Don't you know that there is an ammo shortage here in the US. Apparently the Dept. of Homeland Security has bought up all of the small arms ammo, just in case they get the go ahead to start seizing all of the personal weapons. :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Just added another $1.00 to my Alcoa retirement plan.


----------



## medicineman

cupper said:
			
		

> What I find curious is that Ms. LaLonde states that she is very concerned about how the person replacing General Lawson is going to address this issue, but she doesn't really seem to want to take the time to find out who that is and a what his background is, even though it has been announced for quite some time.



She's probably expecting that she'll be invited for tea and sticky buns with JV anytime soon.
MM


----------



## Tibbson

I didn't think they would have the money to buy all the ammo after buying so many FEMA coffins.


----------



## medicineman

The problem with our ammo shortage is that the people we're sending to these battles unarmed will cause a great deal of planetary damage if the other folks shoot them in the head - a rapid decompression from the head wound would suck large portions of the world in.

MM


----------



## cupper

captloadie said:
			
		

> In her interview she highlights the fact she has a miltary background. Maybe someone only read her CV, and didn't do a cursory web search to see what she was all about.
> 
> Or maybe the staff who organized the lecture was like minded and also was trying to push an agenda. Who knows.



According to what she said in both interviews is that she grew up in a military family. Her father was in the infantry, and she describes him as the most feminist male she knows.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Like I said, weak. Leaders issue clear, concise, and direct messages. That is strong direction.

NCOs have known and managed the jackass factor in young men since the appointment was invented.  Reminders don't need to be force-fed.

The Forces need to stop operating by PC rules and providing platforms for "experts" to sound off.  Continual application of common sense is the template solution for this, and other, problems.


----------



## cavalryman

medicineman said:
			
		

> She's probably expecting that she'll be invited for tea and sticky buns with JV anytime soon.
> MM



I could do so much with that statement, but my wife told me to behave  8)


----------



## medicineman

My work week is over, so my sense of humour is replenished  >.

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I didn't think they would have the money to buy all the ammo after buying so many FEMA coffins.


And those internment camps CAN'T be cheap, either ....


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Like I said, weak. Leaders issue clear, concise, and direct messages. That is strong direction.
> 
> NCOs have known and managed the jackass factor in young men since the appointment was invented.  Reminders don't need to be force-fed.
> 
> The Forces need to stop operating by PC rules and providing platforms for "experts" to sound off.  Continual application of common sense is the template solution for this, and other, problems.



Good point and I agree.

the CAF is not a place for sociologists etc to experiment. Our job is to kill those who would do us harm.


----------



## Harrigan

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And those internment camps CAN'T be cheap, either ....



"Our Canadian friends tell us that virtually all Canadian military bases, especially those north of the 50th Parallel, are all set up with concentration camps. Not even half of these can be listed, but here are a few sites with the massive land space to handle any population:
Suffield CFB - just north of Medicine Hat, less than 60 miles from the USA.
Primrose Lake Air Range - 70 miles northeast of Edmonton.
Wainwright CFB - halfway between Medicine Hat and Primrose Lake.
Ft. Nelson - Northernmost point on the BC Railway line.
Ft. McPherson - Very cold territory ~ NW Territories. 
Ft. Providence - Located on Great Slave Lake. 
Halifax - Nova Scotia. Dept. of National Defense reserve.... 
And others. "

 :


----------



## medicineman

Harrigan said:
			
		

> "Our Canadian friends tell us that virtually all Canadian military bases, especially those north of the 50th Parallel, are all set up with concentration camps. Not even half of these can be listed, but here are a few sites with the massive land space to handle any population:
> Suffield CFB - just north of Medicine Hat, less than 60 miles from the USA.
> Primrose Lake Air Range - 70 miles northeast of Edmonton.
> Wainwright CFB - halfway between Medicine Hat and Primrose Lake.
> Ft. Nelson - Northernmost point on the BC Railway line.
> Ft. McPherson - Very cold territory ~ NW Territories.
> Ft. Providence - Located on Great Slave Lake.
> Halifax - Nova Scotia. Dept. of National Defense reserve....
> And others. "
> 
> :



Well, in their defense, some of those places were POW camps...and sometimes still feel like them to those incarcerated there for Battle School or Maple Resolve, etc.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

Harrigan said:
			
		

> "Our Canadian friends tell us that virtually all Canadian military bases, especially those north of the 50th Parallel, are all set up with concentration camps. Not even half of these can be listed, but here are a few sites with the massive land space to handle any population:
> Suffield CFB - just north of Medicine Hat, less than 60 miles from the USA.
> Primrose Lake Air Range - 70 miles northeast of Edmonton.
> Wainwright CFB - halfway between Medicine Hat and Primrose Lake.
> Ft. Nelson - Northernmost point on the BC Railway line.
> Ft. McPherson - Very cold territory ~ NW Territories.
> Ft. Providence - Located on Great Slave Lake.
> Halifax - Nova Scotia. Dept. of National Defense reserve....
> And others. "
> 
> :



Maybe a bit off topic? Just suggesting .....


----------



## Harrigan

I agree.  It was just a cut-and-paste of the Canadian bit of milnews.ca's link.  Perhaps there is a better place for that tangent (#crazy).....

Harrigan


----------



## Sig_Des

medicineman said:
			
		

> She's probably expecting that she'll be invited for tea and sticky buns with JV anytime soon.
> MM



Having worked closely with him, I have no doubt that he would attend such a meeting well-prepared with research, identification of the problem, and eloquently describing a viable action plan.

I also have no doubt that no matter what he said, short of promising to lobotomize and chemically castrate every male member of the CAF, and placing women in every leadership position, she would not be satisfied and would immediately put out a statement that the male sexual domination of the CAF continues.


----------



## medicineman

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Having worked closely with him, I have no doubt that he would attend such a meeting well-prepared with research, identification of the problem, and eloquently describing a viable action plan.
> 
> I also have no doubt that no matter what he said, short of promising to lobotomize and chemically castrate every male member of the CAF, and placing women in every leadership position, she would not be satisfied and would immediately put out a statement that the male sexual domination of the CAF continues.



I've had a few chats with him myself when he was my CO and I'd agree...though I think he's certainly smart enough to not get suckered into her vortex of "everyone has the right to my opinion" crap.

MM


----------



## cupper

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

*Army chief orders mandatory briefings on sexual misconduct

Lt.-Gen. Marquis Hainse calls harassment a problem that 'erodes the foundation' of the army*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/army-chief-orders-mandatory-briefings-on-sexual-misconduct-1.3124190



> The Canadian Army has ordered mandatory commanders' briefings aimed at preventing sexual misconduct for its 43,000 soldiers and civilian staff delivered at every base and in every one of more than 130 units across the country.
> 
> The commanding officer's briefings follow an extraordinary all-staff memo sent out May 15 by Army Commander Lt.-Gen. Marquis Hainse that urged officers at all levels to accept "collective responsibility" for the military's failures to prevent misconduct and to "be prepared to adopt a climate of change within our institution."
> 
> The army orders came about two weeks after the release of a shocking report on military sexual misconduct written by Marie Deschamps, a former Supreme Court justice.
> 
> Hainse's memo is a sign the army is not waiting for a formal response to the report, now being compiled by Maj.-Gen. Christine Whitecross, before taking action on Deschamps's findings.
> 
> Hainse said the briefings are a first step in recognizing and addressing sexual misconduct within the ranks.
> 
> "The findings of the report are certainly disappointing as we believed we had matured over the years in this crucial and sensitive area," Hainse wrote.
> 
> "The idea that any member of this great institution, military or civilian, should have to defend themselves against any form of sexual behaviour is absolutely deplorable and unacceptable."
> 
> Deschamps found the Canadian Forces had a misogynistic and sexualized culture in which harassment and abuse were overlooked, underreported and poorly understood. The report made 10 recommendations, but Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson only accepted two of those recommendations outright.
> 
> Lawson's commitment to dealing with the problem also was questioned after he told CBC's Peter Mansbridge that "biological wiring" played a role in harassment and assault.
> 
> Lawson apologized and the government said the comments were unacceptable and inexplicable.
> 
> *'Erodes foundation' of army*
> 
> The army commander's note does not try to explain or minimize the problem in any way.
> 
> Instead, it ordered soldiers to immediately stop using language loaded with demeaning sexual references and directed officers and other military leaders to start taking seriously complaints of misconduct made to them.
> 
> "A key concern that strikes at one of the core values of the [Canadian Army] is the mistrust that the chain of command is not taking complaints seriously," Hainse wrote.
> 
> "It is a problem that erodes at the very foundation on which the [army] is built."
> 
> The army is the largest part of the Canadian Armed Forces, accounting for roughly half of the military's 90,000 regular, reserve and civilian staff.
> 
> The army's personnel manager, Col. Tim Young said Hainse's orders came out of a sense of disappointment that 20 years after the military first made efforts to seriously deal with sexual misconduct, the problem still exists.
> 
> "Soldiers work as a coherent team together," Young said, "and to actually look at soldiers having to defend themselves against each other because of sexual misconduct is absolutely unacceptable in the team work environment that we work in.  There's no place for it, no place whatsoever, and that was the key message from the commander."


----------



## OldSolduer

We got that direction not long after it was released.

No one took into consideration that the PRes stands down anywhere from end May - early June.


----------



## McG

Was today or yesterday not the deadline to have had these briefings complete?


----------



## Ostrozac

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> We got that direction not long after it was released.
> 
> No one took into consideration that the PRes stands down anywhere from end May - early June.



Yes, and not only are many reserve units stood down, but the Canadian Army is full of geographically dispersed units -- how exactly a Ranger Patrol Group CO was supposed to comply with that direction without spending millions on travel is beyond me.

Doesn't anybody wargame the outcomes before issuing orders anymore?

???


----------



## cupper

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Doesn't anybody wargame the outcomes before issuing orders anymore?



Do you know how many millions that would cost? What bows and buttons would we need to give up for that?  >


----------



## Brad Sallows

>"be prepared to adopt a climate of change within our institution."

WTF does that even mean?  How about "be prepared to prevent and punish assault, harassment, and misconduct"?

Right now is an excellent time to restore accuracy, brevity, clarity, and relevance to military writing and instructions.  The audience is soldiers, not socially fashionable academics and grievance activists.


----------



## OldSolduer

:goodpost:

Well said. I'm in full agreement.


----------



## PMedMoe

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >"be prepared to adopt a climate of change within our institution."
> 
> WTF does that even mean?



I find many of the "higher ups" to be politicians, or at least, a mouthpiece for politicians.

Even at presentations and such, there's bafflegab; a person speaks a lot but says very little.


----------



## drbones

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I find many of the "higher ups" to be politicians, or at least, a mouthpiece for politicians.
> 
> Even at presentations and such, there's bafflegab; a person speaks a lot but says very little.



"When all is said and done, there is more said than done". A widely applicable quote from my COC.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The new CDS has spoken (alternate link if previous link doesn't work)....


> Ours is a proud heritage of selfless service to Canada often under the most extreme conditions and for the most honourable of causes, the protection of our citizens and the security of our world. In so doing we assume enormous risks and many have made the ultimate sacrifice or have been left maimed and wounded. We face adversaries and danger every day, and there are many who would do us harm. It is therefore abhorrent to me that anyone would mistreat another by bringing harm or the fear of harm through assault or harassment. I lament the fact that there exist within our ranks those that would bully, degrade or assault others, especially another member of the CAF or a member of the Defence Team. Moreover, to attack the dignity of any member by sexual assault and harassment serves only to weaken our force when we need to be strong, and serves to make some feel less worthwhile when we know that everybody is important. Indeed, to treat each other well, to treat everybody with respect and honour is a military virtue and has always been a part of our culture. We must ensure it remains so.
> 
> I will not engage in any discussion or debate about the degree or severity of sexual misconduct in the CAF. It does not matter, for even a single incident is too many, and even unintentional harm or offense is unacceptable. This is a serious matter. Whether you are a leader, a subordinate or a peer, any form of harmful sexual behaviour undermines who we are, is a threat to morale, is a threat to operational readiness and is a threat to this institution. It stops now. Consider this my first order to all members of the CAF.
> 
> To those that have been the target of inappropriate sexual behaviour, the CAF will support you. We must ensure it does not happen again, and we will all respond to the need for change to ensure that respect and honour, cornerstones of our culture, are consistently upheld. I will lead you through this change.
> 
> I intend to see all of the recommendations stemming from the External Review on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment (the Deschamps Report) implemented as rapidly and as effectively as possible. My senior leadership will be supported by the CAF Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct in furthering all efforts associated with the implementation of these recommendations.
> 
> While I recognize commanders at all levels have already begun to take action, providing initial guidance to their organizations, I will sign a CDS Operation Order shortly that will direct our collective actions. I see this as an operation and have chosen the name Operation HONOUR. The CAF have never failed on operations in the past, and we shall not fail now.
> 
> I have summoned all the General and Flag Officers and my commanders at the formation level, along with their CWOs, to a one-day, single issue CDS Commanders’ Seminar in August to lay out the way ahead.
> 
> Although we rely heavily on the chain of command to direct and see to the execution of tasks, it is leadership at all rank levels that is at the core of our culture, it is leadership that makes us tick, it is leadership that inspires, it is leadership that protects, it is leadership that teaches and encourages and it is leadership that will eradicate sexual misconduct from within our ranks. It is the business of us all to make sure that everyone who dons the uniform or who supports us feels valued, respected, confident and motivated. Predators and bullies who act contrary to the betterment and wellbeing of any in our ranks are neither useful in operations nor in garrison and are not welcome in the CAF.
> 
> You will see changes and announcements in the near future that will herald a significant improvement in how the CAF deals with persons affected by sexual misconduct. In the interim, anyone needing immediate emergency assistance should call 911. I encourage anyone who feels harassed or is a victim of inappropriate sexual behaviour to reach out to your chain of command or the Canadian Forces Military Police. If you have been subject to, or witnessed, an incident of sexual misconduct, you can also report directly to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.
> 
> In many cases, the first point of contact for a CAF member who is experiencing problems is their primary care physician at their local CAF clinic. Medical professionals will offer the necessary help or will refer you to a more appropriate resource. CAF chaplains are also trained to listen without judgment and to provide spiritual support if desired.
> 
> CAF members may also access the Canadian Forces Member Assistance Program or CFMAP. CFMAP is a voluntary, confidential counselling service that provides short-term (1 to 8 hours) counselling services for those in need of assistance. The service is available 24/7, is provided free of charge, and can be accessed by calling 1-800-268-7708. As well, CAF members may contact the CAF/DND Ombudsman’s Office for assistance. The Ombudsman’s Office is a direct source of information, referral and education. You can contact them by calling 1-888-828-3626 or ombudsman-communications@forces.gc.ca.
> 
> A CAF member’s family can contact the Family Information Line (FIL) for any support they may need as a result of the unique nature of military life. The FIL is confidential, personal and bilingual, providing supportive counselling 24/7 and can connect a caller with helpful national and local resources, including the local Military Family Resource Centre. Numbers are 1-800-866-4546 (International) and 1-613-995-5234 (Collect calls).
> 
> We are professionals. We rely on one another to see us through any and all challenges. This is no different. Let us all work together under the banner of Leadership, Respect and Honour to eliminate sexual misconduct forever.
> 
> I am proud to be your new CDS together we will ensure respect and dignity for all.
> 
> General Jonathan Vance



- edited to add attachment, alternate link in case link doesn't work -


----------



## Armymedic

Remember how it was said, the CAF's public support was widespread, but only an inch deep.

Due to this issue, our support has dried up.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You will note that General Vance's message has only one sentence longer than two lines, the one developing on the importance of leadership, and not a single complicated or nebulous "buzz-word".

Now that is communication!


----------



## blackberet17

Wha-bam. Now THAT was a message from the top.

No disrespect intended to the previous CDS and his message and video, but THIS message was succinct, to the point, hit the nail on the head with one swing. No prevarication. No nonsense.

Reminded me of LGen David Morrison, Chief of Australian Army, and his youtube video. Spine tingling.


----------



## dapaterson

In a written statement released Tuesday, the Department of National Defence announced that Lt. –Col. Mason Stalker, 40, has been charged with multiple sex-related offences, including sexual assault, sexual exploitation and invitation to sexual touching.

Stalker is a commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-armed-forces-member-charged-with-sex-related-offences-1.2491271

_- mod edit to better reflect outcome - _


----------



## Infanteer

I will put the reminder out now that the officer is the accused and is innocent until proven guilty.  We don't need any speculation, rumour mongering or innuendo on this thread; those that do so will have their posts deleted and may be introduced to the warning system.


----------



## little jim

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I will put the reminder out now that the officer is the accused and is innocent until proven guilty.  We don't need any speculation, rumour mongering or innuendo on this thread; those that do so will have their posts deleted and may be introduced to the warning system.



Given the above, and in light of the CDS' current stance on this topic it will be interesting to see how the chain of command re-acts. Thinking in terms of does he stay CO, which might be construed as guilt however there might be sufficient loss of confidence in his abilities as CO. Does the DCO take over until the investigation is complete?  Do they move in an interim CO (saw this happen in the U.S. once) - brigade deputy moved down to be the CO for almost six months. 

Be curious to hear what the legal options are given his current appointment. 

Mods delete if you require but I think it is within the scope.


----------



## Old EO Tech

little jim said:
			
		

> Given the above, and in light of the CDS' current stance on this topic it will be interesting to see how the chain of command re-acts. Thinking in terms of does he stay CO, which might be construed as guilt however there might be sufficient loss of confidence in his abilities as CO. Does the DCO take over until the investigation is complete?  Do they move in an interim CO (saw this happen in the U.S. once) - brigade deputy moved down to be the CO for almost six months.
> 
> Be curious to hear what the legal options are given his current appointment.
> 
> Mods delete if you require but I think it is within the scope.



I'm not sure if we will here anything publicly on this right away, 1VP is on block leave most of August after a busy 15 days fighting fires in northern sask.  Even if he does get replaced, I doubt DND will release that to the news.


----------



## captloadie

I don't want to run afoul of the site rules, so please delete if deemed inappropriate.

I wonder whether this is just the first of many similar charges that will be laid across the CAF in the coming months. It is possible that the individual(s) involved decided to come forward on their own, but is it not plausible that information gathered from the meetings/interviews done in support of the _External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces_ was used to initiate investigations?


----------



## Remius

captloadie said:
			
		

> I don't want to run afoul of the site rules, so please delete if deemed inappropriate.
> 
> I wonder whether this is just the first of many similar charges that will be laid across the CAF in the coming months. It is possible that the individual(s) involved decided to come forward on their own, but is it not plausible that information gathered from the meetings/interviews done in support of the _External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces_ was used to initiate investigations?



Or maybe the latest direction from the CDS, Army commander and COs has hit home and action is being taken decisively.  Who know.  But if this is a change in culture for the better and is or has started then hopefully the process will sort it out (ie guilty or not guilty).  

Like it or not we the CAF will be under the microscope.  I expect to see a lot more in the media in the next few years.  The new CDS will be held to account by the media and the public rest assured.


----------



## little jim

captloadie said:
			
		

> I don't want to run afoul of the site rules, so please delete if deemed inappropriate.
> 
> I wonder whether this is just the first of many similar charges that will be laid across the CAF in the coming months. It is possible that the individual(s) involved decided to come forward on their own, but is it not plausible that information gathered from the meetings/interviews done in support of the _External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces_ was used to initiate investigations?



Thinking of the time required to lay charges this has to be something that was in the works for awhile. Especially if the timeline as reported by the media is 1998-2007. 

I would note that the charges today are primarily sexual assault in nature; a whole different ball of wax from sexual harassment that has dominated CF news. 

As one of my US colleges mentioned when talking about various senior officers and their 'fall from grace' that has made the news in North America .....'remember these are the best and brightest that were chosen to command.....'


----------



## opcougar

Hmmm...here we go again. The email sent out by the boss last week, must have hit home hard...I mean why is this just coming to light now if it  *allegedly* took place between 1998 - 2007? Mbr would have been a Captain - Major at the time.

This sounds like another Williams situation, only that the last name here makes it even more eerie.


Bail conditions as follows:

*He must adhere to a number of conditions, including staying away from places where children gather such as at pools, parks and daycares and cannot have any contact with cadets 18 years of age or younger. *


----------



## cupper

It is also telling that the restrictions being placed on him are related to contact with persons under the age of 18.


----------



## McG

opcougar said:
			
		

> ... why is this just coming to light now if it  *allegedly* took place between 1998 - 2007?


Because the alleged victim (and there is only one alleged victim) came forward to police in April of this year.

Now let's stop the speculation.  Let the courts do their business and we will see what comes of it.


----------



## RCDtpr

little jim said:
			
		

> Given the above, and in light of the CDS' current stance on this topic it will be interesting to see how the chain of command re-acts. Thinking in terms of does he stay CO, which might be construed as guilt however there might be sufficient loss of confidence in his abilities as CO. Does the DCO take over until the investigation is complete?  Do they move in an interim CO (saw this happen in the U.S. once) - brigade deputy moved down to be the CO for almost six months.
> 
> Be curious to hear what the legal options are given his current appointment.
> 
> Mods delete if you require but I think it is within the scope.



I think the question here would be how could he not be removed from his position?  As a CO, one of his duties is to lay charges within his battalion where he deems appropriate.  NIS do not always investigate sexual assaults; "minor" sex assaults (hate to use the word minor as its not minor to the victim, but merely referring to an assault of such a nature that it wasn't deemed serious enough for NIS) that are investigated by the patrol MPs would have to be sent to the CO if a charge is recommended.

For a person to lay a charge for something he has charges outstanding for is a miscarriage of the legal system.  I understand the slippery slope of removing him would be tantamount to stating he is guilty before proven as such, but the reality is if you leave a CO in position when he has been accused of sexually assaulting a minor....whether guilty or not.....the CF will lose the trust of the public.


----------



## ballz

Administrative action is separate from disciplinary action, and the burden of proof for administrative action is the balance of probabilities.

He can 100% be dealt with administratively immediately while all of this plays out, without interfering with the legal system at all, if his CoC are satisfied that on the balance of probabilities he has conducted himself in a manner not suitable for his rank / appointment / job description, etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The Info-machine version:


> Today, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged a member of the Canadian Armed Forces with multiple sex-related offences including an offence related to Breach of Trust by a Public Officer, all pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada.
> 
> Lieutenant-Colonel Mason Stalker, 40, and Commanding Officer of the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, Edmonton, AB, has been charged with:
> 
> three counts of Sexual Assault in accordance with Section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada;
> four counts of Sexual Exploitation in accordance with Section 153 of the Criminal Code of Canada;
> one count of Sexual Interference in accordance with Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada;
> one count of Invitation to Sexual Touching in accordance with Section 152 of the Criminal Code of Canada; and
> one count of Breach of Trust by a Public Officer in accordance with Section 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
> This CFNIS investigation concerns a series of historical incidents that involve offences alleged to have occurred from 1998 to 2007 in Edmonton, AB while the member was involved as a mentor with a local army cadet corps.
> 
> “These are serious and significant charges under the Criminal Code of Canada,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Francis Bolduc, Commanding Officer of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.  “Regardless of a member’s rank and role in the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service works diligently and independently from the Canadian Armed Forces chain of command to protect individuals from those who violate the law.”
> 
> If anyone has knowledge related to this investigation, they are asked to contact the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service Western Region tip line at: 1-877-233-6066.
> 
> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is a unit within the Canadian Forces Military Police Group.  The mandate of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is to independently investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to Department of National Defence property, Department of National Defence employees and Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving in Canada and around the world.
> 
> - 30 -


----------



## Tibbson

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I think the question here would be how could he not be removed from his position?  As a CO, one of his duties is to lay charges within his battalion where he deems appropriate.  NIS do not always investigate sexual assaults; "minor" sex assaults (hate to use the word minor as its not minor to the victim, but merely referring to an assault of such a nature that it wasn't deemed serious enough for NIS) that are investigated by the patrol MPs would have to be sent to the CO if a charge is recommended.
> 
> For a person to lay a charge for something he has charges outstanding for is a miscarriage of the legal system.  I understand the slippery slope of removing him would be tantamount to stating he is guilty before proven as such, but the reality is if you leave a CO in position when he has been accused of sexually assaulting a minor....whether guilty or not.....the CF will lose the trust of the public.



Actually, the CFNIS has the mandate to investigate all sexual assaults within MP jurisdiction although there have been cases when, due to the nature of the minor offence and/or other factors, they have chosen to wave the investigation to the local MP Det.  In all cases though the matter should have been offered to the CFNIS first.  

As far as your contention that "minor sexual assaults" would have to be sent to the CO if the patrol MPs investigated, you are incorrect.  While patrol MPs cannot lay charges under the NDA (I'll say for now since there is legislation working it's way through the system to amend that and other aspects of the NDA), they can and do lay charges under the Criminal Code.  While it is true that there are circumstances where we would proceed through the NDA, it depends upon the level of military nexus and the impact upon military discipline.  (Unless the offence was committed outside of Canada and therefore outside of Criminal Code jurisdiction)  In cases such as Sexual Assault in Canada, especially when there is a civilian complainant/victim and IF the Base MPs assume the investigation, they go downtown with the charges.

In a case such as this I also don't see any double jeopardy or conflict if the CoC chooses to remove him as CO pending resolution of this matter.  Let's face it, he is not losing financially, he would not be losing his rank, he would only be administratively reassigned owing to the pending charges.  This could easily be justified because of any bail conditions he may be under, any peace bond conditions he may be under, any weapons prohibitions that may have been sought, the change in his DAG status by virtue of the fact he has pending legal matters.  

Regardless, it will all play out over time and I'm sure the media will keep us all informed.  I'm surprised Drapeau hasn't been interviewed and provided his expert opinion on it all as of yet.


----------



## ballz

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> In a case such as this I also don't see any double jeopardy or conflict if the CoC chooses to remove him as CO pending resolution of this matter.  Let's face it, he is not losing financially, he would not be losing his rank, he would only be administratively reassigned owing to the pending charges.  This could easily be justified because of any bail conditions he may be under, any peace bond conditions he may be under, any weapons prohibitions that may have been sought, the change in his DAG status by virtue of the fact he has pending legal matters.
> 
> Regardless, it will all play out over time and I'm sure the media will keep us all informed.  I'm surprised Drapeau hasn't been interviewed and provided his expert opinion on it all as of yet.



He can face the full scope of administrative action, including losing his rank or being released, and it is not double jeopardy.



> Administrative Actions
> 
> 3.10 Administrative actions are initiated under regulations, orders, instructions or policies. In addition to the remedial measures set out in this DAOD, administrative actions include:
> occupational transfer;
> transfer between sub-components;
> posting;
> an offer of terms of service in any case in which an offer has not been made by CAF authorities;
> *reversion in rank; or
> release or recommendation for release, as applicable.*
> 
> 3.11 Administrative actions other than remedial measures may be initiated if:
> 
> a remedial measure has been unsuccessful or breached;
> *the conduct or performance deficiency is serious enough to warrant such actions;* or
> the conduct or performance deficiency may be better resolved through such actions.
> 3.12 For more information on administrative actions, see the General Principles map in DAOD 5019-2, Administrative Review.
> 
> *Administrative Actions Versus Disciplinary Actions*
> 
> 3.13 Administrative actions are not punishments under the Code of Service Discipline.
> 
> 3.14 Both disciplinary actions under the Code of Service Discipline and administrative actions are meant to address a CAF member's conduct or performance deficiency. They may operate independently or one may complement the other.
> 
> 3.15 Disciplinary actions and administrative actions serve different purposes. Disciplinary actions possess a punitive aspect that administrative actions do not. Disciplinary action is initiated only if there are sufficient grounds to justify the laying of a charge under the Code of Service Discipline against a CAF member.


----------



## cupper

Wouldn't it be prudent for the CoC to remove him from his current position due to the fact that he will be preoccupied with dealing the charges against him, and not able to fully focus on his duties as CO? If the allegations ultimately are disproven he could be reinstated as CO, or if found guilty then removal from service would obviously proceed from there.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

cupper said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be prudent for the CoC to remove him from his current position due to the fact that he will be preoccupied with dealing the charges against him, and not able to fully focus on his duties as CO? If the allegations ultimately are disproven he could be reinstated as CO, or if found guilty then removal from service would obviously proceed from there.



I would be more than just a little surprised if that had not already happened.  

Folks - we are less than 24 hours into this, and not all actions are necessarily being reported to the media, let alone army.ca. I suggest we wait for the public response to catch up to the swirl....


----------



## X Royal

According to this news story he has already been removed from command.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2135584/canadian-forces-officer-charged-with-sexual-assault/


----------



## FJAG

X Royal said:
			
		

> According to this news story he has already been removed  suspended from command.
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2135584/canadian-forces-officer-charged-with-sexual-assault/



FTFY

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy

X Royal said:
			
		

> According to this news story he has already been removed from command.
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2135584/canadian-forces-officer-charged-with-sexual-assault/


This, from the CDS:


> “I have been informed of the charges regarding Lieutenant-Colonel Stalker, which stem from alleged offences between 1998 and 2007.
> 
> “As stated by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), these are serious charges under the Criminal Code of Canada.
> 
> “However, I cannot comment on this specific case, given all Canadians should be afforded due process. We must allow the judicial process to unfold.
> 
> “In the meantime, Lieutenant-Colonel Stalker has been suspended from his command assignment until the judicial process is complete.”


Meanwhile, this from Cadets Canada:


> We are aware that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service have charged Lieutenant-Colonel Mason Stalker in relation to a series of historical incidents that involve offences alleged to have occurred while this individual was involved as a mentor with 2551 Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps in Edmonton, Alta.
> 
> The Canadian Cadet Organizations take these charges very seriously and we are cooperating fully with investigators. This individual is no longer involved with the Cadet Program and is not permitted to have contact with cadets.
> 
> The protection, safety and welfare of cadets are always our first priority. All adults working in direct contact with cadets require screening through a Police Records Check and Vulnerable Sector Screening every five years, and cadets are taught that inappropriate sexual behaviour of any kind is unacceptable and they are encouraged to report any incidents regardless of whether the offender is a peer or superior.
> 
> Cadets are provided age-appropriate prevention training that encourages them to report any inappropriate sexual behaviour to a person in authority. Counselling, chaplain, police, instructors and other resources are available to cadets in these situations. Cadets are also encouraged to consult with and seek guidance from their parents.
> 
> Positive Social Relations for Youth Training is mandatory for all members of the Canadian Cadet Organizations. It prepares cadets to interact comfortably within the community and positively with others, exercise sound judgment, accept personal responsibility for actions and choices, deal with interpersonal conflict, and seek help from available resources when needed.
> 
> The Canadian Cadet Organizations do not tolerate incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviour. When allegations are reported, they are investigated and followed up with appropriate action. If there is any possibility that a criminal act has been committed, the matter is immediately referred to the police agency of jurisdiction.


----------



## opcougar

Remember Menard and his antic in theater? Ironically it was Now CDS Vance that was sent back into to take his place. Menard was demoted, and eventually released. 



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Administrative action is separate from disciplinary action, and the burden of proof for administrative action is the balance of probabilities.
> 
> He can 100% be dealt with administratively immediately while all of this plays out, without interfering with the legal system at all, if his CoC are satisfied that on the balance of probabilities he has conducted himself in a manner not suitable for his rank / appointment / job description, etc.


----------



## Pusser

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I think the question here would be how could he not be removed from his position?  As a CO, one of his duties is to lay charges within his battalion where he deems appropriate.  NIS do not always investigate sexual assaults; "minor" sex assaults (hate to use the word minor as its not minor to the victim, but merely referring to an assault of such a nature that it wasn't deemed serious enough for NIS) that are investigated by the patrol MPs would have to be sent to the CO if a charge is recommended.
> 
> For a person to lay a charge for something he has charges outstanding for is a miscarriage of the legal system.  I understand the slippery slope of removing him would be tantamount to stating he is guilty before proven as such, but the reality is if you leave a CO in position when he has been accused of sexually assaulting a minor....whether guilty or not.....the CF will lose the trust of the public.



Remember years ago when Commodore Lerhe reported himself for inappropriate behaviour (surfing porn on a DND computer)?  At the time, he was the Fleet Commander and was faced with having to lay a charge against one of his ship's CO's for doing something that he had done himself.  Ethically, he decided he couldn't do that, so he reported himself to the Formation Commander.  Commodore Lerhe was suspended from command pending investigation and trial.  He was found guilty, fined and then reinstated in command.

On another note, I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned that this latest case involves a man named "Stalker..."


----------



## George Wallace

Pusser said:
			
		

> On another note, I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned that this latest case involves a man named "Stalker..."



It has been alluded to in this thread, and is irrelevant.


----------



## YZT580

With all due respect, the man is innocent. The alleged offences have occurred against a single individual and have yet to prove out in a court of law. No one else seems to have come forward although that could happen later.  There have been literally hundreds of cases where people have had their lives totally destroyed and have later been proven innocent.  It would be a tragedy if an excellent officer and leader was lost because of nothing more than innuendo.  I have noticed that no one on these pages has offered up any personal observations on the man and his abilities.  That might be more relevant than regurgitating various press releases.


----------



## George Wallace

Once again; it is not this site's decision to make, on his innocence or quilt.


----------



## Strike

YZT580 said:
			
		

> ...I have noticed that no one on these pages has offered up any personal observations on the man and his abilities.  That might be more relevant than regurgitating various press releases.



That's probably because those of us that know him, and know him well, are in shock about the allegations and don't know how to react.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Yes I concur, this is a large shock for those of us who know him well, still a lot to process.


----------



## JesseWZ

opcougar said:
			
		

> Hmmm...here we go again. The email sent out by the boss last week, must have hit home hard...I mean why is this just coming to light now if it  *allegedly* took place between 1998 - 2007? Mbr would have been a Captain - Major at the time.
> This sounds like another Williams situation, only that the last name here makes it even more eerie.



I disagree entirely. These investigations, particularly investigations which result in charges being laid, take enormous amounts of time. The email likely had nothing to do with charges being laid as the National Investigation Service (the primary agency) is independent of the Chain of Command and couldn't be influenced one way or another to lay charges. A week is usually not enough time to travel to where the victims reside, conduct detailed interviews, prepare and execute production orders and search warrants, gather any other physical or witness evidence, arrest, charge and release the accused. 
I *suspect* it is simply coincidence that the press release was issued *around* the same time our new CDS has issued strong positive direction in regards to how to handle sexual harassment. It may be that the recent review conducted by the Madame Justice spurred the victims to report the offence, but that is only speculation. I also suspect the timing of the press release is only coincidence and not a ploy or an effort to make an example of one individual.

*Edited for grammar*


----------



## PMedMoe

opcougar said:
			
		

> I mean why is this just coming to light now if it  *allegedly* took place between 1998 - 2007?



Because the victim only came forward in April: Globe and Mail article


----------



## opcougar

Thanks...a couple of people already echoed your point up thread!



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Because the victim only came forward in April: Globe and Mail article



For those saying they are "shocked"...I guess this has similarities to the ongoing RMC incident that made the news as well i.e. the victim, and someone she knew too well, but wasn't "in charge of" / mentoring her. 

A civilian court will decide this latest incident, and we can expect it to drag on for a while. Aside, the new direction from the "boss", is that when there is an alleged accusation of harassment, the accused is to be "removed" / "separated" from the accuser until an investigation is complete. It makes sense really for awkwardness sake and all that


----------



## PMedMoe

cupper said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be prudent for the CoC to remove him from his current position due to the fact that he will be preoccupied with dealing the charges against him, and not able to fully focus on his duties as CO?



Yep.  QR&O 101.09 RELIEF FROM PERFORMANCE OF MILITARY DUTY – PRE AND POST TRIAL: link


----------



## vonGarvin

YZT580 said:
			
		

> With all due respect, the man is innocent. The alleged offences have occurred against a single individual and have yet to prove out in a court of law. No one else seems to have come forward although that could happen later.  There have been literally hundreds of cases where people have had their lives totally destroyed and have later been proven innocent.  It would be a tragedy if an excellent officer and leader was lost because of nothing more than innuendo.  I have noticed that no one on these pages has offered up any personal observations on the man and his abilities.  That might be more relevant than regurgitating various press releases.



You're quite right in that the man is innocent; he has been convicted of nothing.  His record is exemplary, and given that he was chosen to command an infantry battalion, he has been judged as the right person to command.  This is no small feat; many officers are passed over for battalion command.

Having said all of this, however, if (and that is a huge *if*) he were to be convicted, then none of that would be relevant.  As an example of an exemplary career being irrelevant, consider Russell Williams.  He was a colonel in the Air Force and commanded at Trenton.  He was popular, he was effective, and he was key in Canada's response to the earthquake in Haiti some years ago.  But behind the scenes, it turns out he was a monster.  In short, his exemplary career was one thing, he criminal actions another.

For LCol Stalker, he's only been _accused_ and until such time that he is convicted, should that day ever come, he remains an exemplary officer who will be given his due process.  The onus of guilt or innocence remains with HM The Queen, not with him.


----------



## CountDC

ok - is my math off.

Say this young man joined when he turned twelve and events started that year which would have been 1998.  What ever happened took place between then and 2007 which would make him 22 years old.  But cadets is for those 12 to 18 years old.  

Sorry to be a little wary of jumping on the bandwagon.


----------



## mba2011

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For LCol Stalker, he's only been _accused_ and until such time that he is convicted, should that day ever come, he remains an exemplary officer who will be given his due process.  The onus of guilt or innocence remains with HM The Queen, not with him.



Very true Mr Viking. 

It is an problem though, guilty or innocent, that cases like this get tried in the Court of Public opinion first. Unfortunately it paints a disgusting picture before LCol Stalker has had the opportunity to defend himself or prove his innocence. As it was mentioned in the thread, there is a lot more to the story than has been reported in the media. The very little information we know is certainly disturbing, but we don't know the whole story yet. *I am not saying he's innocent or the alleged victim is lying, merely that he deserves the right to defend himself, like all Canadians* 



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> ok - is my math off.
> 
> Say this young man joined when he turned twelve and events started that year which would have been 1998.  What ever happened took place between then and 2007 which would make him 22 years old.  But cadets is for those 12 to 18 years old.
> 
> Sorry to be a little wary of jumping on the bandwagon.



CountDC,

We have so little information about the alleged victim that the math is almost irrelevant. For all we know, the charges could be in relation to events that took place while he was a minor and a cadet, then carried on after, when he was over the age of majority. We don not have enough facts about the incident.


----------



## Strike

CountDC said:
			
		

> ok - is my math off.
> 
> Say this young man joined when he turned twelve and events started that year which would have been 1998.  What ever happened took place between then and 2007 which would make him 22 years old.  But cadets is for those 12 to 18 years old.
> 
> Sorry to be a little wary of jumping on the bandwagon.



You're not the only one who was thinking that.  But we have to remember that it's relatively early days in the investigation and the dates reflect the time he was mentoring cadets and not necessarily when the accused incidences took place.  They would keep the dates vague in order to protect the accuser and also encourage others to come forward if there were other cases.


----------



## Ayrsayle

Strike said:
			
		

> That's probably because those of us that know him, and know him well, are in shock about the allegations and don't know how to react.



Exactly.  I've had the pleasure of working for him over the last year and there was nothing to suspect any of these particular charges.  I suspect most of the members at 1 PPCLI (who are currently on leave) haven't really had the time to process the information.  It was completely unexpected - shock is the common reaction.


----------



## Tibbson

CountDC said:
			
		

> ok - is my math off.
> 
> Say this young man joined when he turned twelve and events started that year which would have been 1998.  What ever happened took place between then and 2007 which would make him 22 years old.  But cadets is for those 12 to 18 years old.
> 
> Sorry to be a little wary of jumping on the bandwagon.



Besides considering the math, one must also consider the nature of the charges.  Speaking in generalities, and not in any way trying to dissect what did or didn't happen or imply someone's guilt or innocence:

1)  Charges for sexual interference can be laid in response to alleged incidents when the victim is younger than 16 years of age;

2)  Charges for "invitation to sexual touching" also apply to crimes against a person younger than 16;

3)  Charges for of sexual exploitation can be laid in response to alleged incident(s) when the person who commits the offence is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person.  A young person is defined as someone between the ages of 16 and 18.

4)  Charges for sexual assault can be laid in response to incident(s) that took place against a victim of any age; and

5)  Charges for "breach of trust for a public officer" can also be laid in response to incidents that took place against a victim of any age or, more then likely, because of the circumstances under which any of the above offences occurred.

If this all makes it to court, and the case is presented, it will become clear why various charges were laid but people can't assume things based on rough indications of timelines and press release details.  Many other factors can come into play.


----------



## YZT580

There is nothing known whatsoever.  The only fact is as stated in the title of this thread: CAF Member charged with sex-related offenses.  Everything else is supposition, hearsay, and slanderous unless and until proven to be true.  Unfortunately it is those thoughts that will come to mind every time his name is mentioned from now until the day he leaves.  He may have been a good officer but he has been tried in the court of public opinion, his guilt has been decided and regardless of the final outcome of his trial (and I truly hope that he is indeed innocent) he will never command even an office party ever.


----------



## Pusser

CountDC said:
			
		

> ok - is my math off.
> 
> Say this young man joined when he turned twelve and events started that year which would have been 1998.  What ever happened took place between then and 2007 which would make him 22 years old.  But cadets is for those 12 to 18 years old.
> 
> Sorry to be a little wary of jumping on the bandwagon.



There is nothing wrong with the math.  I don't think it says anywhere that he was a cadet at the time.  In fact, one article states that it allegedly happened when he was mentoring cadets. It is not at all uncommon for regular force members to volunteer with local cadet corps.  Also, most cadet corps are assigned liaison officers from both regular and reserve units in the vicinity.  I suspect that he is being accused of doing something while he was working with a local cadet corps as a regular force officer.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The Op Order is now out there, complete with "Soldier's Card" here - highlights mine ....


> August 2015
> 
> Distribution List
> 
> References:
> 
> A. External Review Report on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces 27 March 2015
> B. CDS Initiating Directive Sexual Misconduct and Harassment Prevention and Response in the Canadian Armed Forces 25 February 2015
> C. CANFORGEN 130/15 CDS 041/15 222041Z JUL 15
> D. Duty With Honour The Profession of Arms in Canada 2009
> E. DND and CAF Code of Values and Ethics
> F. QR&O 19.15 – Prohibition of Reprisals
> G. QR&O 4.02 - General Responsibilities Of Officers
> H. QR&O 5.01 - General Responsibilities of Non-Commissioned Members
> I. QR&O 106.02 – Investigation Before Charge Laid
> J. DAOD 5019-5 – Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Disorders, 26 Sep 08
> K. DAOD 5012-0 – Harassment Prevention and Resolution, 20 Dec 00
> 
> *Situation*
> 
> General.  Earlier this year, former Supreme Court Justice and External Review Authority (ERA) Marie Deschamps reported on sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).  The report, issued at reference A indicated the existence of an underlying sexualized culture in the CAF, which if not addressed, is conducive to more serious incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault.  Indeed this conduct is wrong and runs contrary to the values of the profession of arms and ethical principles of DND/CAF.
> The cornerstone of any military is the ability to be ready to respond to a wide variety of challenges at a moment’s notice.  Personnel readiness is a function of many factors, the most basic of which is a high degree of physical and mental fitness.  Harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour grievously erodes the confidence that members need to successfully carry out military duties.  It is from this perspective that harmfl and inappropriate sexual behaviour involving members of the CAF is an operational readiness issue, incongruent with our ethics and values, and wrong.
> Harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour is a real and serious problem for the CAF which requires the direct, deliberate and sustained engagement by the leadership of the CAF and the entire chain of command to address.  Sustained engagement on this issue is critical to our effectiveness as a military force and the continued support of the Canadian people.
> Problem Definition.  There are behaviours that are inconsistent with the Profession of Arms.  Harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour includes but is not limited to actions that perpetuate stereotypes and modes of thinking that devalue members on the basis of their sex, sexuality, or sexual orientation; unacceptable language or jokes; accessing, distributing, or publishing in the workplace material of a sexual nature; offensive sexual remarks; exploitation of power relationships for the purposes of sexual activity; unwelcome requests of a sexual nature, or verbal abuse of a sexual nature; publication of an intimate image of a person without their consent, voyeurism, indecent acts, sexual interference, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault.
> 
> *Mission
> 
> To eliminate harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour within the CAF. *
> 
> *Execution*
> 
> CDS Intent.  My intent is to eliminate harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour within the CAF by leveraging the unequivocal support of my Commanders and all leaders in the CAF.  Any form of harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour is a threat to the morale and operational readiness of the CAF, undermines good order and discipline, is inconsistent with the values of the profession of arms and the ethical principles of DND and CAF, and is wrong.  I will not allow harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour within our organization, and I shall hold all leaders in the CAF accountable for failures that permit its continuation.
> All CAF members have a duty to report, to the proper authority, any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions applicable to military members.  Furthermore, where a complaint is made or where there are other reasons to believe that a service offence has been committed, an investigation shall be conducted as soon as practicable.
> Predators and bullies who act contrary to the betterment and wellbeing of any in our ranks are neither useful in operations nor in garrison and are not welcome in the CAF.  Commanders will ensure that prompt and decisive action is taken in response to any harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, consistent with all applicable laws and policies.
> Eliminating harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour within the CAF depends on its members demonstrating the integrity to act in a manner that bears the closest scrutiny and the courage to overcome difficult challenges through determination and strength of character.  There shall be no grace period for the application of our values and ethics.  Proper conduct starts now.
> The increased attention that I have directed the CAF to place on this issue will likely lead to a surge in reporting of harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, as victims who in the past would have suffered in silence now have the confidence to come forward. This should be seen as progress. Some reports will concern events dating back several years.  Others will be more recent.  Regardless, CAF must accept this as another opportunity to address the problem and win-back members’ trust.
> To retain the trust and confidence of Canadians, the CAF will maintain transparency in all actions taken under Op HONOUR.
> This OPORD supersedes the Initiating Directive promulgated at ref B.
> Lines of Effort.  Any harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour is a real and serious problem within the CAF.  A single act of wrong-doing, regardless whether it is conducted inadvertently or without malice, is one too many.  Even unintentional harm or offense undermines good order and discipline, threatens morale, and reduces operational effectiveness.  We will use a strategy involving four lines of effort:
> 
> a. Understand.  The CAF shall establish a clear understanding of what constitutes harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, the means to identify members who are in need of support, and improved reporting and assessment measures;
> 
> b. Respond.  The CAF shall institutionalize a cultural change, framed by clear direction and training for leaders on how to better direct and effect culture change throughout the institution;
> 
> c. Support.  The CAF shall provide support and better facilitate services to CAF members affected by harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour including the establishment of a Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (SMRC).  To the extent possible, support to those affected by harmful and inappropriate sexual behavior shall be guided by “do no harm”; and
> 
> d. Prevent.  The CAF shall develop a unified policy approach to specifically define what constitutes harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour in plain language, enhance education and training on harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, and establish an objective and enduring capability to measure performance and effect.
> 
> Conduct of Operations.  This will be a whole-of-CAF effort.  The CAF will initially use the CAF Strategic Response Team – Sexual Misconduct (CSRT-SM) to coordinate the development of policies, education, training, and additional member support.  Op HONOUR shall be executed in four phases:
> 
> a. Phase One - Initiation.  (Ongoing) VCDS will complete a comprehensive strategy and associated action plan to address the remaining recommendations of the ERA report while taking the necessary steps to develop the mandate, governance and operational model of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (Interim) (SMRC(I))(See Annex B). Commanders and the Senior Leadership of the CAF shall personally receive my detailed direction and intent on the actions needed to achieve the mission.  Commanders will formally and personally communicate this down and oversee the development of Formation and Unit-level orders.  Phase One is to be complete no later than (NLT) 30 Sep 15;
> 
> b. Phase Two – Preparation.   Commanders shall personally oversee the communication and application of discipline, extant leadership doctrine, and orders and policies specifically in relation to inappropriate sexual behaviour.  The Supported Commander, assisted by the Supporting Commanders, will develop and deliver education on harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour to CAF.  Concurrent with the execution of this phase, the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (Interim (SMRC(I)) will commence operations as outlined in Annex B.  The effectiveness of Phase Two activities are to be measured, with the results reported to me NLT 1 Jul 16;
> 
> c. Phase Three – Deployment/Employment.  Concurrent with Commanders’ continued communication and application of discipline, the CAF will issue revised policies and deliver mission-specific training to its leaders.  Concurrent with the execution of this phase, SMRC(I) will transition to a full operational capability.  The effectiveness of each of Phase Three activities are to be measured, with the results reported to me NLT 1 Jul 17; and
> 
> d. Phase Four – Maintain and Hold.  In this phase, the CSRT-SM coordination functions will be re-absorbed into a DND/CAF that is better oriented, educated and trained to administer them in a manner that is fully consistent with DND and CAF Code of Values and Ethics.  Commanders will continue to personally oversee the maintenance of values and the application of administrative and/or disciplinary measures. The SMRC will continue to function at full operational capability .
> 
> Main Effort. Leveraging CAF leadership at all levels to stop wrong and harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour and provide better support to affected members.
> End State.  The end state shall be achieved when all CAF members are able to perform their duties in an environment free of harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour and are able to fully enjoy the support of an institution that fosters mutual trust, respect, honour, and dignity.  Meeting this end state requires the following conditions to be met:
> 
> a. Leadership-Driven Culture Change:  The strengthening of the CAF culture and ethos in a manner that reinforces mutual trust, respect, honour, and dignity;
> 
> b. Uphold the Profession of Arms:  The CAF is founded on a core Canadian value; the respect for dignity of all persons at all times.  Honour flows from practicing Canadian military values and ethics.  It is every member’s duty to uphold the Profession of Arms and, above all, do the right thing; and
> 
> c. Support for CAF Members:  CAF members who have been affected by harmful and inappropriate sexual behavior will be better supported with discretion and empathy, and appropriately informed about the resources that are available to them from an effective, comprehensive, and coordinated network.
> 
> CDS Critical Information Requirements (CCIR).  The CCIRs below apply to all phases of Op HONOUR:
> 
> a. Extent and nature of harmful and Inappropriate sexual behaviour within CAF;
> 
> b. Any alleged or confirmed acts of sexual misconduct or other breaches of these orders by Formation Commanders, Commanding Officers, and their Chief Petty Officers 1st Class/Chief Warrant Officers; and
> 
> c. Issues that prevent Commanders from achieving the mission.
> 
> Groupings and Tasks.  See Annex A
> Coordinating Instructions
> 
> a. Key dates and timings. The key dates frame CAF activities:
> 
> (1) 20 Aug 15: CDS Leadership Engagement;
> 
> (2) 01 Sep 15: Stand-up of SMRC(I);
> 
> (3) 15 Sep 15: SMRC(1) reaches initial operational capacity;
> 
> (4) NLT 30 Sep 15: Orders issued down to the lowest tactical level;
> 
> (5) 01 Oct 15: CSRT-SM from VCDS to CMP;
> 
> (6) Winter 15/16: Symposium for CAF Senior Leaders and Stakeholders on Harmful and Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour;
> 
> (7) APS 18: Stand-down CSRT-SM and transfer of functions to applicable DND/CAF OPIs; and
> 
> ( 8 ) FY 18/19: SMRC Full Operational Capability (FOC).
> 
> *Service Support*
> 
> The JAG is committed to ensuring that those findings and recommendations within reference A that touch upon the military justice system are closely reviewed, in coordination with CSRT-SM, to ensure that any changes to military justice legislation, policies and practices are consistent with the approaches being developed by that team.
> The CFPM is committed to ensuring that those findings and recommendations within reference A that touch upon military police investigations, training or professional standards are closely reviewed, in coordination with JAG and CSRT-SM, to ensure that any changes to policies and practices in these areas are consistent with the approaches being developed by that team.
> Force Allocation.  Op HONOUR will be conducted from within the extant establishment of the CAF, with support provided by DND.  Human and other resources for Op HONOUR will be acquired through the CFTPO, civilian secondments, and/or the extant Level 0 Business Plan.
> Task Coordination.  Personnel will be tasked through the National Personnel Tasking System to ensure filling of essential tasks and provide reports to the CDS as required.
> Commanders shall continue to coordinate their efforts through CSRT-SM.   CAF mission success will depend on the development of effective staff linkages between Commanders and CSRT-SM.  CSRT-SM will work closely with SMRC(I).  Both will operate within their respective mandates to inform actions undertaken by the CAF leadership to achieve the mission.
> Public Affairs Posture.  The CAF will pursue an active PA posture, with ADM (PA) responsible for developing the public affairs strategy and leading and coordinating its execution.  CSRT-SM Public Affairs will coordinate and staff PA products for ADM (PA) approval through the Supported Commander.
> 
> *Command and Signals*
> 
> This operation is command-centric, supported by an accountability framework that extends throughout the CAF.
> Commanders at all levels are to personally issue their own formal, written orders down to the lowest tactical unit to ensure consistency of messaging.  These shall be used as the basis for the development of tactical orders, which shall be reviewed two levels up prior to their issuance.  Supported and Supporting Commanders will verify to me personally that orders have been reviewed, communicated and understood at all levels.
> Supported Commander.  VCDS is the supported commander for Phase One.  CMP is the supported commander for Phases Two, Three and Four.
> Supporting Commanders/Group Principals. All other Commanders and Group Principals.
> Transfer of Command Authority (TOCA). On 1 Sep 15, SMRC(I) will stand-up.
> On 1 Oct 15, authority for CSRT-SM will transfer from VCDS to CMP.
> Points of Contact:
> 
> a. VCDS:
> 
> (1) Cmdre BWN Santarpia, COS VCDS, 613-992-6091
> 
> b. CMP:
> 
> (1) BGen N Eldaoud, COS CMP, 613-992-7702
> 
> c. CSRT-SM:
> 
> (1) LGen CT Whitecross, Commander, 613-996-2347;
> 
> (2) Col GMH Fontaine, Deputy Commander, 613-996-2365;
> 
> (3) Ms. N. Neault, Strategic Advisor, 613-996-2592;
> 
> (4) LCol JPS Lapointe, Chief of Staff, 613-996-3522;
> 
> (5) Cdr P Grimshaw, Deputy Director Policy, Education and Training, 613-996-3181;
> 
> (6) LCol JAM Villeneuve, Deputy Director Programme Effectiveness Measurement, 613-996-3158;
> 
> (7) Ms. M. Lamothe, Communications Advisor, 613-996-3133; and
> 
> 33. SMRC(I):  To be promulgated
> 
> J.H. Vance
> General


----------



## Jarnhamar




----------



## McG

The order is now in the media, with a reminder that we are advancing over ground that we fought once before.



> Military bans crude jokes, racy photos in sexual misconduct crackdown
> MURRAY BREWSTER, The Canadian Press
> The Globe and Mail
> 17 Aug 2015
> 
> OTTAWA -  That everything old is new again may be the best way to describe the coming battle over sexual misconduct in the Canadian military.
> 
> The country’s defence chief has formally signed orders intended to stamp out impropriety and harassment, but to understand the kind of uphill struggle facing Gen. Jonathan Vance, just look back to 1999.
> 
> “To attract and retain this highly skilled pool of personnel, they must know that they will be treated fairly, and with dignity and respect throughout their careers,” wrote now-retired general Maurice Baril, who much like Vance today, was laying out his expectations for gender equality as women were introduced to combat jobs.
> 
> He said women had a right to a harassment-free workplace and fair and equitable employment practices.
> 
> Fifteen years ago, Baril asked soldiers to respect one another. Vance is now demanding it and threatening consequences.
> 
> Last spring, a blistering report by retired Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps found sexual misconduct was “endemic” in the military, where leaders tolerated a pervasive macho culture and women were afraid to report harassment and even assaults.
> 
> Vance’s order not only prohibits obvious offences, but goes beyond to target behaviours that “perpetuate stereotypes and modes of thinking that devalue members on the basis of their sex, sexuality, or sexual orientation.”
> 
> Inappropriate jokes of a sexual nature, racy photos and unwelcome advances are among specifically prohibited acts.
> 
> During his swearing-in last month, the new defence chief made a point of saying that bullies are not welcome within the ranks and are often the least effective members in combat.
> 
> Yet, the attitudes that have sustained harassment are deeply entrenched and were identified a decade and half ago as major obstacles to the integration of women into combat posts.
> 
> “Women must cope simultaneously with symbols and behaviours which perpetuate and maintain male ideology while developing identities as women which satisfies the organizational culture,” said a Dec. 20, 1999 employment equity plan.
> 
> “The male identity of the organization is strongly evident through sexualized behaviours and norms, such as male attitudes of paternalism, sexist male talk, joking and innuendo and sexual harassment, in the day-to-day work environment.”
> 
> The new order by Vance tells commanding officers to act quickly when they hear of a complaint and warns that all leaders are accountable for failures that let the current culture continue.
> 
> The blunt instructions not only lay out expectations in terms of behaviour, but set timelines for action, including a rare meeting planned this week involving senior leadership from across the country where Vance is expected to lay down the law.
> 
> The onus will also be on members who believe they’ve been victimized to step forward, something that’s expected to lead to a surge in complaints and possibly military police investigations.
> 
> “Eliminating harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour within the CAF depends on its members demonstrating the integrity to act in a manner that bears the closest scrutiny and the courage to overcome difficult challenges through determination and strength of character,” said the order. “There shall be no grace period for the application of our values and ethics. Proper conduct starts now.”
> 
> Yet, it is not the first time the military has been here.
> 
> In the late 1990s senior leadership struggled to understand why women, who had fought to become frontline soldiers, tank drivers, fighter pilots and submariners, were ditching their uniforms in unacceptably high numbers.
> 
> The report concluded that career management, social and family issues drove the departures, but the notion of a sexualized culture was never far from the surface.
> 
> “Although organizational policies and regulations are evolving in attempts to integrate women, the experience of women as ‘women within a male-dominated organization’ contributes significantly to the attrition of women from that environment,” said the employment equity review.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/military-bans-crude-jokes-racy-photos-in-sexual-misconduct-crackdown/article25990911/


----------



## Lumber

Just for comparison:

*Indonesia's Virginity Test For Female Army Recruits Criticised By Human Rights Campaigners*



> Moeldoko went so far as to claim that there was "no other way" to determine the morality of a female.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/whats-the-problem-with-twofinger-virginity-test-for-women-says-indonesian-military-commander-10258805.html


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Just for comparison:
> 
> *Indonesia's Virginity Test For Female Army Recruits Criticised By Human Rights Campaigners*
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/whats-the-problem-with-twofinger-virginity-test-for-women-says-indonesian-military-commander-10258805.html



Sounds like this former CF medic Retired petty officer James Wilks.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest - _more_ charges (release also attached in case link doesn't work) ....


> Today (11 Sept 2015), the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged a former Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) medical technician for incidents alleged to have occurred while he performed medical exams at Canadian Forces recruiting centres in London and Thunder Bay, Ontario.
> 
> Petty Officer, 2nd class (PO 2) (Retired) James Wilks was charged with the following:
> 
> two counts of sexual assault, in accordance with section 130 of the National Defence Act, and pursuant to section 271 of the Criminal Code; and
> ten counts of breach of trust by a public officer, in accordance with section 130 of the National Defence Act, and pursuant to section 122 of the Criminal Code.
> It is alleged that between 2004 and 2009, the accused performed medical examinations on CAF recruits and serving members contrary to prescribed medical procedures.  In September 2010 and January 2012, the CFNIS laid a total of 23 charges against PO 2 Wilks (Retired) in relation to similar incidents.  In December 2012, the CFNIS laid 17 additional charges against the retired member.
> 
> As a result of the high visibility of the previous charges laid against Mr. Wilks regarding these incidents, eight additional victims came forward to file complaints ....


----------



## donaldk

Damn.. more lickings for Mr. Wilks, good that more are coming forward.  I have had a couple medicals done by him back in my PRes days in Thunder Bay, he was an odd cat for sure.

/// I'll leave the Thunder Bay trashing for another post... I left it without looking back for many good reasons.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Next step:  _"We are proud to announce that the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (Interim) is now open ...."_ - also attached if link doesn't work.

This part jumped out at me:


> .... If Canadian Armed Forces members have experienced or witnessed harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, the Centre is now available by phone at 1-844-750-1648 or by e-mail DND.SMRC-CIIS.MDN@forces.gc.ca A team of dedicated professionals is ready to provide support, information, and referrals *between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday to Friday. Should a call be received outside of regular hours of operations or on statutory holidays, members will be able to leave a message and at their request, one of the staff members will return their call within one business day* ....


Any word out there if there's consideration to the hours of operation being eventually extended?  Then again, I'm guessing it might end up being assessed based on usage, but worst-case in me is picturing the victim of a late-night really bad incident having to leave a message?  Or is that why the CDS said to call 911 if all else fails:


> .... In the interim, anyone needing immediate emergency assistance should call 911 ....



More on the Centre here.


----------



## Tibbson

We were briefed today that these are just the hours for the interim center.  Once the full centers are up and running (2017 or so apparently) the hours will be extended. I've got a number of other concerns with the set up as well but I'll comment on those once I get a few more questions answered by the people working to set this up.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> We were briefed today that these are just the hours for the interim center.  Once the full centers are up and running (2017 or so apparently) the hours will be extended. I've got a number of other concerns with the set up as well but I'll comment on those once I get a few more questions answered by the people working to set this up.



2017? It will take 2 years to get the 'full centres' up and running?

Wow. Just wow.  :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Once the full centers are up and running (2017 or so apparently) the hours will be extended.


Sounds like at least SOMEONE thought of it - thanks for sharing.


			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 2017? It will take 2 years to get the 'full centres' up and running?
> 
> Wow. Just wow.  :facepalm:


Have to agree with this, though ....


----------



## Rifleman62

Quote from: Schindler's Lift on Today at 14:29:00

    We were briefed today that these are just the hours for the interim center.  Once the full centers are up and running (2017 or so apparently) the hours will be extended. I've got a number of other concerns with the set up as well but I'll comment on those once I get a few more questions answered by the people working to set this up.

daftandbarmy



> 2017? It will take 2 years to get the 'full centres' up and running?
> 
> Wow. Just wow.



They have to get the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (Interim) Main HQ and Regional HQ's up and running first. ;D


----------



## Tibbson

Budget
Location
Infrastructure
Coord with other agencies
Staff and training

I somehow think 2017 is an ambitious target.

The big issues I see are that they run the risk of injecting themselves into the policing process, whether it's civpol or MP.  They also duplicate much of the same services already available through provincial victim services programs.  

When it comes to the Centers...will they have call display in the event they need to reconnect or intervene with someone in crisis who hangs up?  How will that affect someone who wants to remain anonymous?  

Will their number be blocked?  The Centers I mean.  If someone in an abusive situation calls for assistance will the Centers number show up on the callers display so that their partner can see it later on and get upset?  

If someone wants to reach out to the Center but they don't want the police involved does that mean some administrative process would kick in and what are the rights of the accused to know their accuser or even defend themselves from the accusation against them?

Believe me, if the Centers are going to exist then I want them to work and be useful but I also want them to be fair and effective.  Time will tell.


----------



## MARS

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> When it comes to the Centers...will they have call display in the event they need to reconnect or intervene with someone in crisis who hangs up?  How will that affect someone who wants to remain anonymous?
> 
> Will their number be blocked?  The Centers I mean.  If someone in an abusive situation calls for assistance will the Centers number show up on the callers display so that their partner can see it later on and get upset?
> 
> If someone wants to reach out to the Center but they don't want the police involved does that mean some administrative process would kick in and what are the rights of the accused to know their accuser or even defend themselves from the accusation against them?
> 
> Believe me, if the Centers are going to exist then I want them to work and be useful but I also want them to be fair and effective.  Time will tell.



My first thought is that we should emulate/replicate whatever civilian rape/suicide crisis centres currently use - certainly they must have a suitable system for us to use or build upon.  No need to re-invent the wheel, although we will likely do just that


----------



## Gunner98

I would suggest that this new centre will be much like Blue Cross and CFMAP, in which we have purchased capacity within an already existing system VAC/Blue Cross and CFMAP/Health Canada. 

The set-up time required will depend on the extent of bilingual content of the standard response packages, follow-up/reporting mechanisms and the training of the phone operators. 

Creating a separate system when excess capacity exists in other similar under-utilized programs is not fiscally responsible.  Similarly, I am puzzled why a centre is being set-up to handle just these calls when the entire CAF is being lectured and counselled on the no tolerance policies.  Shouldn't there be a single 'whistle-blower'-type call centre that handles all complaints of which the sex-related ones would be a sub-set, likewise for harassment, fraud, domestic/spousal abuse, suicide prevention, drugs/addictions.


----------



## PuckChaser

Because the former justice said to do it, and if we do anything other than exactly what she recommended, we'll be hammered in the media for turning a blind eye. It doesn't matter if it makes it easier/more efficient/more economical/provides better support.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because the former justice said to do it, and if we do anything other than exactly what she recommended, we'll be hammered in the media for turning a blind eye. It doesn't matter if it makes it easier/more efficient/more economical/provides better support.



Looking good is half the battle   :nod:


----------



## Halifax Tar

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Looking good is half the battle   :nod:



Optics win wars of information, not facts.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I would suggest that this new centre will be much like Blue Cross and CFMAP, in which we have purchased capacity within an already existing system VAC/Blue Cross and CFMAP/Health Canada.
> 
> The set-up time required will depend on the extent of bilingual content of the standard response packages, follow-up/reporting mechanisms and the training of the phone operators.
> 
> Creating a separate system when excess capacity exists in other similar under-utilized programs is not fiscally responsible.  Similarly, I am puzzled why a centre is being set-up to handle just these calls when the entire CAF is being lectured and counselled on the no tolerance policies.  Shouldn't there be a single 'whistle-blower'-type call centre that handles all complaints of which the sex-related ones would be a sub-set, likewise for harassment, fraud, domestic/spousal abuse, suicide prevention, drugs/addictions.



Quite frankly I would have more faith in the Crime Stoppers system than anything the CF comes up with (in 2+ years at no doubt an extraordinary cost to the taxpayers)

http://www.bccrimestoppers.com/


----------



## Tibbson

MARS said:
			
		

> My first thought is that we should emulate/replicate whatever civilian rape/suicide crisis centres currently use - certainly they must have a suitable system for us to use or build upon.  No need to re-invent the wheel, although we will likely do just that



Actually, for many years now our Victim Services personnel have been working hand in glove with these civilian sexual assault and victim services agencies.  I guess what already exists isn't good enough.   :


----------



## Tibbson

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I would suggest that this new centre will be much like Blue Cross and CFMAP, in which we have purchased capacity within an already existing system VAC/Blue Cross and CFMAP/Health Canada.
> 
> The set-up time required will depend on the extent of bilingual content of the standard response packages, follow-up/reporting mechanisms and the training of the phone operators.
> 
> Creating a separate system when excess capacity exists in other similar under-utilized programs is not fiscally responsible.  Similarly, I am puzzled why a centre is being set-up to handle just these calls when the entire CAF is being lectured and counselled on the no tolerance policies.  Shouldn't there be a single 'whistle-blower'-type call centre that handles all complaints of which the sex-related ones would be a sub-set, likewise for harassment, fraud, domestic/spousal abuse, suicide prevention, drugs/addictions.



Nope.  It's a whole new entity being essentially built from the ground up.  Sure they are looking at models used by the militaries of other nations but no, they are not buying into any other system.  I don't know why not though.  Each province has their own mandated and established victim services program that can be tapped into for free now.


----------



## Tibbson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because the former justice said to do it, and if we do anything other than exactly what she recommended, we'll be hammered in the media for turning a blind eye. It doesn't matter if it makes it easier/more efficient/more economical/provides better support.



Sadly I think you are right.  Efficiency be darned...PR is more important because that is what hurts us the most.


----------



## c_canuk

The optics of anything but an all out effort to meet each and every bullet point in the recommendations will be seen as refusal to correct the situation. 

Also, it may be that the cheaper way is to go with 100% complete compliance as quickly as possible so we can move on.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest ....


> A high-ranking military officer accused of sex offences has chosen to have a jury trial.
> 
> Lt.-Col. Mason Stalker, 40, commander of the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry in Edmonton, was arrested in July on 10 charges.
> 
> (....)
> 
> A justice official says a preliminary hearing in the case is to begin Aug. 2.
> 
> No trial date has been set.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I want to assume that's a typo. October 2nd?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I want to assume that's a typo. October 2nd?


All the stories give the same date - the wheels of justice can, at times, grind sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly ....


----------



## Strike

So, any lawyers in here care to chirp in as to what would be considered an unresonable time to face justice?  Because, yah, almost a year between his last court date and the preliminary seems pretty long.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Strike said:
			
		

> So, any lawyers in here care to chirp in as to what would be considered an unresonable time to face justice?  Because, yah, almost a year between his last court date and the preliminary seems pretty long.



While not a lawyer, I did note a similar time between offence/arrest and preliminary hearing for another alleged sexual offence case that was discussed on this means.

Re: 4 RN Sailors Charged with Gang Sexual Assault 


> The four Brits were arrested by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service on April 16 and were released April 20 after posting cash bail of $3,000 each. They’re living at CFB Suffield in Alberta, where the British army has a training unit.
> 
> In June, the men elected to be tried by a Supreme Court judge and jury. A preliminary inquiry will be held in April in Dartmouth provincial court.


----------



## FJAG

Strike said:
			
		

> So, any lawyers in here care to chirp in as to what would be considered an unresonable time to face justice?  Because, yah, almost a year between his last court date and the preliminary seems pretty long.



Bit hard to know the actual facts here but if I have things right then we have incident reported in late April, charges laid in Jul and a preliminary inquiry set for Aug 2nd (2016 presumably. That's not unreasonable or unusual. When individuals appear in order to set a preliminary hearing date then the dates assigned depend on the number of days that the inquiry will take (based on the two lawyers' best estimate) and the first available dates where all of: a provincial court judge, and the two lawyers involved have time available in their schedules. Sometimes, especially where you have a high profile defence lawyer, the delay may be based simply on that lawyer's availability. Crown attorneys generally are more flexible. In some very busy regions/cities judge availability may also be an issue.

Here the appearance to set a date was late September 2015 and a 2 Aug 2016 date is just a touch over ten months and, as I said above, that's not unusual.

 :cheers:


----------



## Bzzliteyr

And where does the person that has been charged stay/live/exist during that time? Jail? 

I'll admit I haven't the foggiest and have only dealt with military charges that didn't involve my incarceration.

*edited for typo, apparently "asmit" is a word in the dictionary*


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> And where does the person that has been charged stay/live/exist during that time? Jail?


I haven't found anything in media coverage to date, but if he WAS in jail, I'm guessing that would be a pretty big part of the 5W's the media would be mentioning.


----------



## MJP

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> And where does the person that has been charged stay/live/exist during that time? Jail?
> 
> I'll admit I haven't the foggiest and have only dealt with military charges that didn't involve my incarceration.
> 
> *edited for typo, apparently "asmit" is a word in the dictionary*



Generally most people are released while awaiting trial, sometimes with conditions that they must abide by.


----------



## Haggis

Section 499 of the Criminal Code sets out the conditions under which an accused can be released while awaiting trial.


----------



## JesseWZ

MJP said:
			
		

> Generally most people are released while awaiting trial, sometimes with conditions that they must abide by.



In order to remand (keep in jail) someone prior to trial (a time period which can last many months), the Crown must appear before a Judge and argue for why the accused needs to stay in jail. Typically, the argument revolves around being a danger to the public or a pattern has developed where the accused will skip town or commit additional offences. 

An accused can also be released immediately following arrest on conditions (or no conditions) and can be jailed to await trial if he has had difficulty adhering to his conditions.


----------



## FJAG

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> In order to remand (keep in jail) someone prior to trial (a time period which can last many months), the Crown must appear before a Judge and argue for why the accused needs to stay in jail. Typically, the argument revolves around being a danger to the public or a pattern has developed where the accused will skip town or commit additional offences.
> 
> An accused can also be released immediately following arrest on conditions (or no conditions) and can be jailed to await trial if he has had difficulty adhering to his conditions.



That's not a bad summary.

The area is very complex and the provisions for judicial interim release (ie bail granted by a judge) are found at s 515 of the Criminal Code. See here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-311.html#h-166

Note particularly subsection 515(10) which lists the circumstances that would justify denying bail.

 :cheers:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-canadas-military-has-its-share-of-men-behaving-badly-but-dont-declare-them-all-disreputable


----------



## a_majoor

I am reminded of the time I was taken from the Bde HQ and sent for Harassment Investigator training. It was drawn out and quite expensive (judging by the amount of outside "talent" being brought in to train us). I never used this training since shortly thereafter it was decided that civilian investigators would be hired instead, which from what I was able to gather were even _more_ expensive. 

So we are now reinventing the wheel for the third time (remember SHARP and diversity training?) and creating another alternative bureaucracy to do something which we have the tools to do already. But, as said, it is mostly perception. We must be _seen_ to "do" something.

While I am certainly for finding and removing abusive people, my true objection to this entire exercise is it is built on an assumption of guilt, aligned with some pretty broad and vague definitions of what constitutes abuse. Much like the situation in the 1990's I can well imagine a spate of accusations and investigations as people try the system to settle scores or attack people they don't like, leading to a work environment where everyone is looking over their shoulder wondering if someone, somewhere, will take something out of context and use it against them. I can hardly imagine a more corrosive work environment for everyone.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Sexual Harassment…Some See It…Some Won’t

In the spring of 1980, Redbook magazine invited HBR to conduct a joint survey on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. Among the questions that needed to be addressed: How critical is the problem? Is it pervasive? How difficult is it for top management to spot and prevent harassment? Will it be easy to implement the newly issued EEOC guidelines? We surveyed more than 7,000 HBR subscribes, of whom 25% responded. (In its March 1981 issue, Redbook is publishing a separate article on the survey.) 

The major conclusions discussed include the following. Most people agree on what harassment is. But men and women disagree strongly on how frequently it occurs. The majority correlate the perceived seriousness of the behavior with the power of the person making the advance. Top management appears isolated from situations involving harassment. Many women, in particular, despair of having traditionally male-dominated management understand how much harassment humiliates and frustrates them, and they despair of having management’s support in resisting it. Most people think that the EEOC guidelines—although reasonable in theory—will be difficult to implement because they are too vague. 

The survey clearly shows that management should address this problem, which affects the morale, self-confidence, and efficiency of many workers. On a positive note, respondents suggest specific policies and approaches for management to confront the issue.



https://hbr.org/1981/03/sexual-harassmentsome-see-itsome-wont&cm_sp=Article-_-Links-_-Top%20of%20Page%20Recirculation


----------



## ballz

[tangent] Wow, I noticed it specifically mentions firearms in there yet fails to specify some of the more obscene crimes one could have committed... [/tangent]


----------



## Lumber

*HMCS Athabaskan sexual assault report sparks investigation*
Alleged assault occurred 3 weeks ago while ship was at sea

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-athabaskan-sexual-assault-report-1.3349988

Clearly, we're not yet seeing the institutional change that we're striving toward.

However, what's interesting is that, while The Deschamps Report focuses on the sexualized culture of the military that is hostile toward women, the victim of this sexual assault is a male.



> "A military police spokesperson says information about counselling has been provided to the complainant, but did not say if *he*  has used the help.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It happens to both sexes in Canadian society and we're a part of that society.  I investigated a sexual assault that ocurred at sea on VDQ in the late 90's and was based off the ATH while we completed the investigation.  What should be the take away is that these things are thankfully few and far between and hopefully they will continue to shrink in number.


----------



## Lumber

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It happens to both sexes in Canadian society and we're a part of that society.  I investigated a sexual assault that occurred at sea on VDQ in the late 90's and was based off the ATH while we completed the investigation.  What should be the take away is that these things are thankfully few and far between and hopefully they will continue to shrink in number.



Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was interesting that it was a man who was sexually assault, but that it's interesting that a man was sexually assaulted _in light of all the recent reports about inappropriate sexual behaviour toward women._


----------



## Remius

Lumber said:
			
		

> Clearly, we're not yet seeing the institutional change that we're striving toward.



I don't know.  The fact that a someone felt comfortable enough to make a complaint of this nature and that it is actually being investigated seems to indicate that from an institutional side of things that the system seems to be working.  Seems to me that the CoC hasn't failed in its duties to this individual.  We are never going to completely stop these things.  However we as the CAF have to ensure that it will never be tolerated.

There's certainly work to be done yes, but I know that in my work environment this issue is being taken seriously.


----------



## Lumber

Remius said:
			
		

> I don't know.  The fact that a someone felt comfortable enough to make a complaint of this nature and that it is actually being investigated seems to indicate that from an institutional side of things that the system seems to be working.  Seems to me that the CoC hasn't failed in its duties to this individual.  We are never going to completely stop these things.  However we as the CAF have to ensure that it will never be tolerated.
> 
> There's certainly work to be done yes, but I know that in my work environment this issue is being taken seriously.



Good point. A lot of the issues detailed in the report had to do with under-reporting due to an accurate belief that the chain of command wouldn't take accusations clearly, or turn a blind eye.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with some of the latest, from this week ...


> A former Canadian Forces reservist whose sexual assault conviction was overturned says he’s still trying to clear his name with the military.
> 
> Orman Savage was jailed and kicked out of the Canadian Forces after the conviction in a civilian court in Alberta, but was cleared following an appeal six years ago.
> 
> Savage was a master corporal, but says he still has a dishonourable discharge, which he says prevents his business from receiving government contracts.
> 
> He says it also means he’s ineligible for benefits or a pension for his service.
> 
> Savage says he’s been trying for years to get an honourable discharge but the process has been frustrating.
> 
> The Canadian Forces says it is aware of the case but will not comment further due to privacy reasons.


... and a few years ago (2011), but after the last post in this thread:


> A former Edmonton reservist acquitted of sexual assault has filed a $1 million lawsuit against the military, the complainant and her mother.
> 
> Orman Savage was found not guilty of sexual assault in his second trial in 2009. He was accused of sexually assaulting the recruit, then 21, at a military party on July 30, 2004 ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> All the stories give the same date - the wheels of justice can, at times, grind sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly ....


(Belatedly) picking up on that theme, preliminary hearing set for August 2 (no trial date set), with trial by jury selected.


----------



## mariomike

May 25, 2016 

Pacific fleet commander says no room for sexual misconduct on navy ships
http://www.680news.com/2016/05/25/pacific-fleet-commander-says-no-room-for-sexual-misconduct-on-navy-ships/
VICTORIA – The top-ranking naval officer on the West Coast says there’s no room for sexual misconduct on board ships.


----------



## NavalMoose

Build bigger ships then.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> Build bigger ships then.



My laugh of the day!  Milpoints coming!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest ...


> A military board examining how the army dealt with a high-profile case of sexual assault has been ordered to stop writing its final report on the incident and continue pursuing its internal investigation on a number of points, CBC News has learned.
> 
> As of mid-April, the board of inquiry (BOI) report into retired master corporal Stéphanie Raymond's case had been written and was almost ready for sign-off.
> 
> But Lt.-Gen. Marquis Haines recently instructed the five member panel to take another look at "a few further issues" that were not sufficiently addressed in the initial investigation, several government sources have told the CBC.
> 
> An army spokesman confirmed the inquiry has resumed.​
> 
> "The convening authority, the Canadian army, has asked the BOI to assemble once again to continue pursuing its work to investigate one or two additional points," Lt.-Col. Andre Salloum said in an interview. He wouldn't comment on what aspects require more examination, nor when the extended investigation would be completed ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So in other words, "keep looking till we find something to hang him with?"


----------



## Lightguns

NO, in the article words, the army has admitted that she had her career destroyed by an old boys club and fraud, therefore, and most likely, the final BOI should not be considering evidence related to that old boys club and the fraud.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lightguns said:
			
		

> NO, in the article  Drapeau's words, the army has admitted that she had her career destroyed by an old boys club and fraud, therefore, and most likely, the final BOI should not be considering evidence related to that old boys club and the fraud.



FTFY  ;D


----------



## Lightguns

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> FTFY  ;D


From the article; "In a December 2014 letter, former Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson conceded Raymond had been treated badly by senior officers in her regiment, and that her release from the military was based on information found in fraudulent documents."

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> So in other words, "keep looking till we find something to hang him with?"



A BoI is not a disciplinary investigation - it's a "what happened so we understand the events and can figure out how to fix the system to prevent recurrence" investigation.


----------



## The Bread Guy

An update from the CDS via the _Canadian Military Journal_ (also attached in case link doesn't work) ...


----------



## FJAG

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> Build bigger ships then.



Not funny at all.

I know, I know, it's just a joke, however, it's exactly the fact that so many of us still think the whole thing is one big joke that the problem continues and that things like the Deschamps Report are needed to point out to us that as a workplace we're falling behind in what are acceptable standards of behaviour.

Time to grow up.

 :2c:


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not funny at all.
> 
> I know, I know, it's just a joke, however, it's exactly the fact that so many of us still think the whole thing is one big joke that the problem continues and that things like the Deschamps Report are needed to point out to us that as a workplace we're falling behind in what are acceptable standards of behaviour.
> 
> Time to grow up.
> 
> :2c:



I overlook Esquimalt harbour daily from my 11th floor office in downtown Victoria. 

In other words 'I see no ships'


----------



## Lightguns

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not funny at all.
> 
> I know, I know, it's just a joke, however, it's exactly the fact that so many of us still think the whole thing is one big joke that the problem continues and that things like the Deschamps Report are needed to point out to us that as a workplace we're falling behind in what are acceptable standards of behaviour.
> 
> Time to grow up.
> 
> :2c:



Concur, I got to two girls in, between them, they account for 1 attempt of a superior trying trade job and course flavors for sex (abuse of authority), 1 attempt of minor sexual assault (touching), 2 founded HA complaints, 1 urination on their kit, 1 urination on barrack room door.  Not to mention the welcoming tirade of PLQ course WO who believes women don't make good leaders at all but he can accept women as leaders if they have a baby first.  And all that in 7 years.  How would you like it if the "guys" in the barracks held their drunk parties in the room across from the women's' washroom, kept the door open, made cat calls at your daughters when they tried to use their washroom.  I am not talking about soldier banter either, downright rude sexual comments that everyone knows is not acceptable.  

Its downright freaking scary to be a female member of a Army combat arms unit in this Canadian Forces (and likely a ship as well but I have no knowledge there), and I have begged them both to quit numerous times but they got backbone.  A lot of soldiers need to grow up on this file.  

I remember the MP warnings that would be passed around O Grps at Gagetown to remain female subordinates that, yet another, barrack perv was on the prowl and they should lock themselves at night.  This is bullshit and it has to stop!


----------



## dapaterson

A lot of leaders need to step up and stop making excuses for assholes "oh, he's a good troop".  No. Groping subordinates is not something a good troop dors; stop making excuses and start drafting RDPs and Administrative Reviews.


----------



## Andraste

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not funny at all.
> 
> I know, I know, it's just a joke, however, it's exactly the fact that so many of us still think the whole thing is one big joke that the problem continues and that things like the Deschamps Report are needed to point out to us that as a workplace we're falling behind in what are acceptable standards of behaviour.
> 
> Time to grow up.
> 
> :2c:



Agree fully . . . I think most can get the comedic satire but the problem is there are many who do not and comments like this cease to be a joke and become tolerated within the chain of command and  people being told to grow a thick skin.

Andraste


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Or...some of you are taking a harmless joke and turning it into a lynching party.  Christ almighty.

IF there is a sexual harassment problem in the Canadian Armed Forces, it is because there is one in Canadian society, where we recruit from.


----------



## MARS

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Or...some of you are taking a harmless joke and turning it into a lynching party.  Christ almighty.
> 
> IF there is a sexual harassment problem in the Canadian Armed Forces, it is because there is one in Canadian society, where we recruit from.



Exactly. And those recruits move up the ranks, continuing to be completely fucking TONE DEAF to the current situation.  Christ Almighty is right.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Then I suggest it is a handful of UNIT problems, vice the entire CAF.  Why?

I've been in 27 years this month.  I've worked in Army, Navy and now Air Force units.  Field units, HQs and TEs including recruit schools.

In the last 10 years for sure, without question, I've never witnessed, or heard of this 'rampant sexual harassment' like the report suggested.  I don't know anyone who has witnessed it;  such things tend to be known about, right?  I've been at approx. 10? units over the past 10 years; some army, navy and AF.  Yet no 'rampant sexual harassment issues'.  

Hold the offending members to account, and the unit leadership that failed to prevent them (if that's the case) but I won't be party of this wide brush BS that some of you are buying into.

I was involved in a rather serious harassment case once, where the SIU was involved.  I escorted the victim, a male, to the SIU myself for his initial interview.  There's 2 sides to every coin and I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon, based on my fairly broad experiences in the CAF.

The point about Canadian society;  if we have a problem in the CAF, it reflects on CANADA not just the CANADIAN ARMED FORCES.  Maybe we are failing these kids with out PC way of raising youth these days where everyone is a special snowflake and there is not consequences for actions.

The entire CAF is not 'ripe with sexual harassment and assault'.   :  Punish those who need it, support the victims.  Investigate units with problems and hold that unit leadership to account.


----------



## FJAG

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Or...some of you are taking a harmless joke and turning it into a lynching party.  Christ almighty.
> 
> IF there is a sexual harassment problem in the Canadian Armed Forces, it is because there is one in Canadian society, where we recruit from.



That's pure rationalization. We do not control attitudes in the civilian society but we can in the military. The real reason we have a sexual harassment problem in the CF is because we continue to tolerate it in subtle and not so subtle ways including giving milpoints to something that shouldn't get them.

The joke is neither funny nor harmless. It shows that at least some people are still not getting the point that real members of the CF are being harmed by this attitude and acts of sexual harassment. We should all work together to get rid of the problem instead of undermining real efforts with infantile humour.

 :cheers:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FJAG said:
			
		

> That's pure rationalization. We do not control attitudes in the civilian society but we can in the military. The real reason we have a sexual harassment problem in the CF is because we continue to tolerate it in subtle and not so subtle ways including giving milpoints to something that shouldn't get them.
> 
> The joke is neither funny nor harmless. It shows that at least some people are still not getting the point that real members of the CF are being harmed by this attitude and acts of sexual harassment. We should all work together to get rid of the problem instead of undermining real efforts with infantile humour.
> 
> :cheers:



Yes, that's me.  I support harassment and encourage it  .  Let's not make assumptions about people we've never met before and attribute real problems to insignificant things like MilPoints...


----------



## Scott

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Or...some of you are taking a harmless joke and turning it into a lynching party.  Christ almighty.



No.

"Harmless" to you. That sort of joke doesn't belong here. Full stop. I obviously missed this one beforehand. No lynching, just a suggestion that you know your audience before flipping one like that out there - and it's nearly impossible to know the audience here. You don't have to jump any bandwagon, and I appreciate your experiences as well as TI - but that has fuck all to do with a joke made in poor taste in a public forum.

Now, if you want to get back to discussing the matter at hand.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Jarnhamar

> The West Coast’s top-ranking naval officer says there’s * no room for sexual misconduct on board his ships* , and he’s on a mission to offer support and comfort to victims of abuse.



Sorry  but this sounds like a canned  political statement.   How many serial offenders has he signed off on getting the boot from the CAF? 

Offering support and comfort is great but if there's no room on the ships for it,  for example,  what's being done with them?
   
I'd like to see old cases reopened or at the very least looked at.   Including cases of false accusations whom the offenders should be equally punted.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Scott said:
			
		

> Now, if you want to get back to discussing the matter at hand.
> 
> Scott
> Staff



That's always the plan.   :nod:

As I said in an earlier post;  punish the offenders, investigate the circumstances and hold the CofC to account if they are not doing business as directed and support the victims.  

That, in essence, in what should happen.  If a complaint is pushed up the CofC that is sat on and further incidents happen, IMO those in the CofC who 'sat on it' are now in the 'offenders' category.  

I've got serious problems with the wording of the report that paints all male CAF members are 'sexual deviants' etc, because that goes pretty much completely my time lacing up the boots.  I've also read accounts from some of the females who were interviewed that suggested the questions were leading in nature, etc.

Is there a problem in the CAF?  I'd say yes, and not expect there wouldn't be.  We recruit from Canadian society and there is a problem there.  But, back in my day if someone pulled some crap on your girlfriend or sister, etc it was okay to knock some regret down the f88ktards face.  Nowadays, there would be a meeting and a tree planting or something.  No consequences for actions = no changing of behaviour.

The report and bandwagon jumpers point the finger at the CAF and do 'tsk tsk!!' when what we are _really_ doing is cleaning up a mess someone else let happen or didn't stop years before.  Let's fix whatever problem there is, but don't point the finger at the CAF like this stuff is something we teach and encourage.


----------



## PuckChaser

Let's just see what the survey data says. Considering the first stats from the phone line they set up showed that 50% of callers were male....


----------



## Altair

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Concur, I got to two girls in, between them, they account for 1 attempt of a superior trying trade job and course flavors for sex (abuse of authority), 1 attempt of minor sexual assault (touching), 2 founded HA complaints, 1 urination on their kit, 1 urination on barrack room door.


If fellow troop urinating on the barracks floor constitutes harassment of some sort I need to make a lot of calls.


----------



## McG

The problem that Op Honour seeks to address includes a lot of things that fall short-of or outside the definition of harassment.  If you dismiss things as not a/the problem because they are not harassment, then you are missing the problem.


----------



## Lightguns

Altair said:
			
		

> If fellow troop urinating on the barracks floor constitutes harassment of some sort I need to make a lot of calls.



You see what you did there?  You took what I wrote, stripped the context and added irreverent context to trivialize it.  That is part of what Op Honour and the previous SHARP program before tried to address in our system.  As the gentlemen above noted, he was a "good troop" with just one little defect.  That defect made him useless in working with 30% of the rest of the CF.  In the actual incident, the soldier was found to have a very long history of disrespect to peer and superiors who happen to be female.  The Comdt was basically tired of his crap and he was released.

We been through this twice now, each time is an internally lead correction.  Given the current level of progressive politics and mouthing of feminist slogans by cabinet, the next time is liable to be an externally lead purge of anti feminist elements.


----------



## PuckChaser

We should be purging those elements who haven't adapted to the times. I don't care what you look like, who you are sexually attracted to, or whether you identify your gender as a potato. If you can do your job, and do it well, you're in my good books. If you're a crappy soldier and try to hide behind race/gender/sexual orientation to justify it, that's where I have the problem.

We've done it to ourselves though. Instead of purging any mention of gender/race at merit boards, we have targeted recruiting to make people feel like special flowers. Best person for the job, period.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

There is still a big problem in the CAF.  The problem with Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault with the former being a contributor to the latter, is that it's not talked about and it's existence is confined to a seedy subculture of the CAF, much like illicit drug use.

There are tonnes of drug users in the CAF, what has the institution done about that?  My concern is that we are more concerned with damage control than actually solving the problem.  

We need people at the MCpl/Sgt and Lt/Capt to start grabbing the bull by the horns and tackling these issues head on.  It's the only way you'll see the culture change.


----------



## Teager

If only we could all be treated the same no matter what gender/race/religion ect.


----------



## Gunner98

I joined in 1983 and retired in 2013, during that span I saw back and forth trends in the culture concerning women in uniform.  The examples that follow are about equality which is the first step in establishing appropriate behavior.

In 1993, I witnessed young leaders (Sgt/ MCpl) who kicked their wives and kids out of PMQs and moved in recent graduates from their courses and the chain of command refused to acknowledge the situation.  In 1998,  I coached a ladies league softball team on Base, mostly wives and young soldiers.  The soldiers were not given the same leniency in attending games as their male counterparts did in the men's leagues.  There were not mixed teams for them to participate with their co-workers. By 2007, the intramural sports (including ice and floor hockey teams) were mixed teams.

Throughout my years at various training institutions there were more inappropriate relationship between instructors and their students than between course mates. 

I don't think it is a matter of the MCpl/Sgt and Lt/Capt who need to grab the horns, it is the senior leadership needs to watch and listen to their subordinates, treat the situations seriously and openly set the example that this is not acceptable.  There is no requirement to adapt to the times - it was always inappropriate - it is not more so today than it was then in the 1980s or 1990s.  Like the famous line in _A Few Good Men_ - we can't handle the truth.  If you set out to purge every element that could not adapt it would require the cutting off the head(s) of the beast at the highest levels.  The young soldiers and officers learn what is acceptable and tolerated as norms at training institutions and in the early days at their first units.  If these norms are appropriate and enforced then bad things do not happen.  

The situation is unlike the drugs one - we have instituted random, safety specific, drug testing and in doing so acknowledge how serious the problem is, as well, we release, discipline and rehabilitate those found in violation of the norm.  As for sexual misconduct and harassment the CAF struggled for decades until Op Honour and a few BOIs forced the Senior Leadership to openly acknowledge that the problem existed and required action.


----------



## Altair

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I joined in 1983 and retired in 2013, during that span I saw back and forth trends in the culture concerning women in uniform.  The examples that follow are about equality which is the first step in establishing appropriate behavior.
> 
> In 1993, I witnessed young leaders (Sgt/ MCpl) who kicked their wives and kids out of PMQs and moved in recent graduates from their courses and the chain of command refused to acknowledge the situation.  In 1998,  I coached a ladies league softball team on Base, mostly wives and young soldiers.  The soldiers were not given the same leniency in attending games as their male counterparts did in the men's leagues.  There were not mixed teams for them to participate with their co-workers. By 2007, the intramural sports (including ice and floor hockey teams) were mixed teams.
> 
> Throughout my years at various training institutions there were more inappropriate relationship between instructors and their students than between course mates.
> 
> I don't think it is a matter of the MCpl/Sgt and Lt/Capt who need to grab the horns, it is the senior leadership needs to watch and listen to their subordinates, treat the situations seriously and openly set the example that this is not acceptable.  There is no requirement to adapt to the times - it was always inappropriate - it is not more so today than it was then in the 1980s or 1990s.  Like the famous line in _A Few Good Men_ - we can't handle the truth.  If you set out to purge every element that could not adapt it would require the cutting off the head(s) of the beast at the highest levels.  The young soldiers and officers learn what is acceptable and tolerated as norms at training institutions and in the early days at their first units.  If these norms are appropriate and enforced then bad things do not happen.


St Jean was bad for this when i was there. Ever sit close enough to the leadership table to overhear what was being talked about, and you realize that the inappropriate relationships between course mates was nothing compared to the inappropriate relationship between staff and course members.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> St Jean was bad for this when i was there. Ever sit close enough to the leadership table to overhear what was being talked about, and you realize that the inappropriate relationships between course mates was nothing compared to the inappropriate relationship between staff and course members.


Unacceptable in any school environment, let alone recruits. Those knowing and not doing anything about it are just as guilty those doing it. All of those instructors should be on C&P and sorted out. Another example of poor leadership.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Scott said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> "Harmless" to you. That sort of joke doesn't belong here. Full stop. I obviously missed this one beforehand. No lynching, just a suggestion that you know your audience before flipping one like that out there - and it's nearly impossible to know the audience here. You don't have to jump any bandwagon, and I appreciate your experiences as well as TI - but that has fuck all to do with a joke made in poor taste in a public forum.
> Scott
> Staff



I had some time to re-think about this.  I'll take the second to say "you guys were right";  those types of jokes directed at females, harassment, assault, etc are not okay and 'those days' have to go.

What I found funny was the quick quip to what is a poorly worded PC statement from Navy, not the idea of the bigger ships part.  I still feel there was a bandwagon, some people jumped on it after this 'report' was released.  My experience is as I stated it, so I take some exception to the broad brush strokes that 'the military is full of male deviants' and things like that.

I'll always get my back up to a report labelling all CAF members are "XYZ" and be one of the people to point out we are only as good as the Canadian citizens we are growing these days, where we recruit from.  The problem exists in the CAF because we let it exist in our country.  I'd prefer to see it stamped out earlier in life than when people can already vote for their PM.

However, you, FJAG, etc were correct and good on you for calling me out and making me (and maybe others) re-think some;  what is harmless to me might not be harmless to others, and as leaders at whatever level we live and breath in the CAF of today, we have to think about these things.  I come from a different time than the average Cpl/Pte of today does, and it never hurts to be reminded, called out and made to re-think if the lessons and attitudes of "have a thick skin" fit into situations today like they did XX years ago.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Altair] 
St Jean was bad for this when i was there. Ever sit close enough to the leadership table to overhear what was being talked about, and you realize that the inappropriate relationships between course mates was nothing compared to the inappropriate relationship between staff and course members.
[/quote]
I think you're bang on with this. [To include inappropriate comments as well]


----------



## FJAG

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I had some time to re-think about this.  I'll take the second to say "you guys were right";  those types of jokes directed at females, harassment, assault, etc are not okay and 'those days' have to go.
> 
> What I found funny was the quick quip to what is a poorly worded PC statement from Navy, not the idea of the bigger ships part.  I still feel there was a bandwagon, some people jumped on it after this 'report' was released.  My experience is as I stated it, so I take some exception to the broad brush strokes that 'the military is full of male deviants' and things like that.
> 
> I'll always get my back up to a report labelling all CAF members are "XYZ" and be one of the people to point out we are only as good as the Canadian citizens we are growing these days, where we recruit from.  The problem exists in the CAF because we let it exist in our country.  I'd prefer to see it stamped out earlier in life than when people can already vote for their PM.
> 
> However, you, FJAG, etc were correct and good on you for calling me out and making me (and maybe others) re-think some;  what is harmless to me might not be harmless to others, and as leaders at whatever level we live and breath in the CAF of today, we have to think about these things.  I come from a different time than the average Cpl/Pte of today does, and it never hurts to be reminded, called out and made to re-think if the lessons and attitudes of "have a thick skin" fit into situations today like they did XX years ago.



 :goodpost:

 :cheers:


----------



## Andraste

Sorry . . . I see no humour in the joke.  It may seem harmless but if that is the case I challenge anyone to say that joke in the workplace and see how harmless it is taken.  The joke is misogynistic plain and simple and the reason why some may find it funny is they cannot put themselves in the place of the person the joke is aimed at (women).  

WRT it is not a CAF problem but a societal problem . . . I agree and disagree.  Because we recruit from society we expect intolerant d-bags to get through the screening the process and for the most part they are dealt with by the system as they crop up.  However there are many who fly below the radar because we tolerate such "harmless humor" and tell women to grow a thick skin if they want to fit in with the boys.   That is a wrong attitude and one the CAF should be above.  We may have inherited societies problem, but we also represent Canada to the country and the world writ large so we should be held to a higher standard.  So societie's problem . . . yes but, it is also a CAF problem and one that needs to be stamped out less we look like fools.

Sexual harassment/misconduct is alive and well folks . . . my 23 year old niece spent five weeks at St Jean being casually hit on by instructors, sexual innuendo being tossed around in the form of harmless jokes by other students all within earshot of smiling instructors.  When she complained she was told . . . don't let them get to you they are just testing your mettle to belong in the CAF.  Seriously . . . she had to prove she belonged?  She quit before I had a chance to talk to her.  Nice . . . very nice.

Andraste


----------



## Altair

Andraste said:
			
		

> Sorry . . . I see no humour in the joke.  It may seem harmless but if that is the case I challenge anyone to say that joke in the workplace and see how harmless it is taken.  The joke is misogynistic plain and simple and the reason why some may find it funny is they cannot put themselves in the place of the person the joke is aimed at (women).
> 
> WRT it is not a CAF problem but a societal problem . . . I agree and disagree.  Because we recruit from society we expect intolerant d-bags to get through the screening the process and for the most part they are dealt with by the system as they crop up.  However there are many who fly below the radar because we tolerate such "harmless humor" and tell women to grow a thick skin if they want to fit in with the boys.   That is a wrong attitude and one the CAF should be above.  We may have inherited societies problem, but we also represent Canada to the country and the world writ large so we should be held to a hire standard.  So societies problem . . . yes but, it is also a CAF problem and one that needs to be stamped out less we look like fools.
> 
> Sexual harassment/misconduct is alive and well folks . . . my 23 year old niece spent five weeks at St Jean being casually hit on by instructors, sexual innuendo being tossed around in the form of harmless jokes by other students all within earshot of smiling instructors.  When she complained she was told . . . don't let them get to you they are just testing your mettle to belong in the CAF.  Seriously . . . she had to prove she belonged?  She quit before I had a chance to talk to her.  Nice . . . very nice.
> 
> Andraste


There can probably be a whole thread on the goings on  in St Jean alone. 

Some, not all, but some, view that place as party central. Lots of stories to be told about what goes on within those walls but that's a little off topic.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Andraste said:
			
		

> Sorry . . . I see no humour in the joke.  It may seem harmless but if that is the case I challenge anyone to say that joke in the workplace and see how harmless it is taken.  The joke is misogynistic plain and simple and the reason why some may find it funny is they cannot put themselves in the place of the person the joke is aimed at (women).
> 
> WRT it is not a CAF problem but a societal problem . . . I agree and disagree.  Because we recruit from society we expect intolerant d-bags to get through the screening the process and for the most part they are dealt with by the system as they crop up.  However there are many who fly below the radar because we tolerate such "harmless humor" and tell women to grow a thick skin if they want to fit in with the boys.   That is a wrong attitude and one the CAF should be above.  We may have inherited societies problem, but we also represent Canada to the country and the world writ large so we should be held to a hire standard.  So societies problem . . . yes but, it is also a CAF problem and one that needs to be stamped out less we look like fools.
> 
> Sexual harassment/misconduct is alive and well folks . . . my 23 year old niece spent five weeks at St Jean being casually hit on by instructors, sexual innuendo being tossed around in the form of harmless jokes by other students all within earshot of smiling instructors.  When she complained she was told . . . don't let them get to you they are just testing your mettle to belong in the CAF.  Seriously . . . she had to prove she belonged?  She quit before I had a chance to talk to her.  Nice . . . very nice.
> 
> Andraste



It's unfortunate that that happened to her. That's the problem with the way that St. Jean is staffed... we should be sending our best examples of leadership, ethics, and deportment there to instill in our future Officers and NCO's what we expect. Instead, we allow people like those instructors to socialize the new persons, who are EXTREMELY impressionable, to believe that harassment and often outright stupidity are just "part of the system". To me, that's where we start with Op HONOUR- send the best we have to recruit schools to set the future up for success. If that means a unit loses a "star" than so be it- units need to see the big picture too


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Andraste said:
			
		

> Sorry . . . I see no humour in the joke.  It may seem harmless but if that is the case I challenge anyone to say that joke in the workplace and see how harmless it is taken.  The joke is misogynistic plain and simple and the reason why some may find it funny is they cannot put themselves in the place of the person the joke is aimed at (women).
> 
> WRT it is not a CAF problem but a societal problem . . . I agree and disagree.  Because we recruit from society we expect intolerant d-bags to get through the screening the process and for the most part they are dealt with by the system as they crop up.  However there are many who fly below the radar because we tolerate such "harmless humor" and tell women to grow a thick skin if they want to fit in with the boys.   That is a wrong attitude and one the CAF should be above.  We may have inherited societies problem, but we also represent Canada to the country and the world writ large so we should be held to a higher standard.  So societie's problem . . . yes but, it is also a CAF problem and one that needs to be stamped out less we look like fools.
> 
> Sexual harassment/misconduct is alive and well folks . . . my 23 year old niece spent five weeks at St Jean being casually hit on by instructors, sexual innuendo being tossed around in the form of harmless jokes by other students all within earshot of smiling instructors.  When she complained she was told . . . don't let them get to you they are just testing your mettle to belong in the CAF.  Seriously . . . she had to prove she belonged?  She quit before I had a chance to talk to her.  Nice . . . very nice.
> 
> Andraste



Just want to point out you say 'women' and 'she'...it is a two way street, maybe not the same amount of traffic on both sides, but there are two sides.  The sole case of sexual harassment/assault I was involved in years ago, to the SIU level, was a male victim.   I believe Puckchaser pointed out something along the line that 50% of the calls or something along that line, to date have been males.

Although it was almost a decade ago now, I was once staff at CFLRS and was surprised by many things that seemed 'okay' up there.  I wasn't unhappy to leave when my OT came in.  Places like CTC and other TEs, the behavior I witnessed and tried to correct where I could, particularly at the MCpl level, would have been met with some consequences.  I'd hoped that things had changed since my time there but...it appears not.


----------



## PuckChaser

Just to put the context to the "50%" number, here's where I got the data, starts on page 10:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/caf-community-support-services/sexual-misconduct-progress-report-en.pdf

Quick summary:



> 15 Sept to 31 Dec 2015:The model shows that 204 individuals contacted the Centre for a total of 246 contacts. Of the 246 times people contacted the SMRC, 196 instances were by
> telephone and 50 by email. Of the 204 individuals, 156 of those were CAF members.
> 
> SMRC Total = 246
> •Gender was 49% female, 50% male (with 2 not captured)
> •Numbers do not necessarily represent those directly experiencing sexual misconduct.


----------



## Andraste

Hey Puck Chaser,

To put a bit of context to the statistics quoted, the last line of summary "numbers do not necessarily represent those directly experiencing sexual misconduct".  So while the numbers indicated approximately a 50/50 split in caller gender it is not clear what percentage (in either case) actually experienced sexual misconduct.  The follow on statistics "Top Reasons for Contact" one of the top reasons was for information purposes only (close of 50 percent).  As such, the statistics are not conclusive in either direction . . . that is the problem with descriptive statistics, they never really tell the whole story just a quick summary with little bang for the buck.  

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## PuckChaser

Which is why I posted the context and actual data when I was able to find the link.

I'll just be happy when they stop assuming I'm a rapist lying in wait just because I'm male.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Andraste]

Sexual harassment/misconduct is alive and well folks . . . my 23 year old niece spent five weeks at St Jean being casually hit on by instructors, sexual innuendo being tossed around in the form of harmless jokes by other students all within earshot of smiling instructors.  When she complained she was told . . . don't let them get to you they are just testing your mettle to belong in the CAF.  Seriously . . . she had to prove she belonged?  She quit before I had a chance to talk to her.  Nice . . . very nice.

Andraste
[/quote]
It sounds like some people there deserve a punch in the face.
Can you speak with your niece and have her report them to the sexual Misconduct hotline so it ideally won't continue to happen to other candidates?


----------



## Andraste

Hey Jarnhamar,

Unfortunately the experience was so upsetting that she lost complete faith in the CAF to do anything about it.  She was hoping for a career in the CAF and now she wants to get as far away from it as possible.  I'll keep trying but I am not crossing my fingers.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## mariomike

Andraste said:
			
		

> She was hoping for a career in the CAF and now she wants to get as far away from it as possible.



Sorry to hear that. My sister made her career in the Regular Force.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Andraste said:
			
		

> Hey Jarnhamar,
> 
> Unfortunately the experience was so upsetting that she lost complete faith in the CAF to do anything about it.  She was hoping for a career in the CAF and now she wants to get as far away from it as possible.  I'll keep trying but I am not crossing my fingers.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andraste



Incidents like this, if they go unreported and are never investigated, will just pro-long the time it takes to make change.  I hope she at least follows thru to some level...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Incidents like this, if they go unreported and are never investigated, will just pro-long the time it takes to make change ...


Indeed, and until more change happens, it'll only take a vocal few to be able to keep this accusation going ... 


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'll just be happy when they stop *assuming I'm a rapist lying in wait just because I'm male.*


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Incidents like this, if they go unreported and are never investigated, will just pro-long the time it takes to make change.  I hope she at least follows thru to some level...



Completely agree. Yes, she's uncomfortable with the CAF for letting this happen, even feeling betrayed. However, she can help make the changes required so instructors at St. Jean are appropriately dealt with. Any sexual remark/action or romantic connection between instructor and student is unacceptable and those members need to be held to account. That only happens when a student comes forward, or another instructor who hears about someone bragging about it reports it.


----------



## Andraste

Hello Puckchaser,

Should she come forward?  Absolutely and I keep trying to convince her of doing so.  
Unfortunately, she was so saddened by the chain of command’s response (i.e., her instructors) that she was reticent to go higher because she was afraid what their response would be.

However, the salient point is that this should never had happened and no person (woman or man) should be put in position where they are denigrated by sexual, racial or harassing comments/misconduct which are silently condoned by those in charge (in this case the instructors).  This was kind of my point about the original OP joke (larger navy ships) not being funny.  It may seem harmless but it identifies an insipid undertone of “_it’s okay to make light of issues such as this_” and it is up to those who it effects to grow a thicker skin.  The act in of itself IMHO is counterintuitive to the ethics of the CAF which we should all aspire.  Even more damaging is when those in leadership positions do nothing to prevent or stop this kind of behavior.  Personally, I will call anyone out (man or woman . . . regardless of rank) who makes comments which are harassing in nature irrespective of the target group.  That is my job as a leader and if all leaders did so, then the issues we face today would most likely not exist.

Those of seniority (either by rank or position) should not let any harassing behavior slide.  When those new recruits saw those instructors smiling and silently condoning their behavior what kind of message was given to them?  The instructors should have shut that down immediately and sent the right message.  It is not up the individual to resolve the problem of the system as the system (for the most part) still paints those who come forward as “_problem children_” or the complaints are seen as spurious and vexatious.  Don’t get me wrong it is getting better but I think we can all agree the sentiment still exists in some circles.  So when you have young troops in a position of potentially being sanctioned or ostracized for coming forward, it takes a lot of courage to blow the whistle in an environment where it is not always welcomed.  So saying the victims should step up and help resolve the issue while true is not always an accurate reflection of the environment in which the behavior was condoned (in this instance a power imbalance . . . student/instructor).  The institution needs to ensure the culture is conducive to coming forward without the potential for personal or professional ramifications.  Conversely, the institution also needs to ensure that complaints are investigated without becoming a witch hunt or immediately sanctioning the member whom the complaint is lodged against (i.e., innocent until proven guilty).  Once investigated if the member is truly at fault then the appropriate level of sanction should be taken.  However, if the complaint was found to be vexatious then IMHO the complainant should be appropriately sanctioned.  Vexation and spurious complaints do more damage than good.  They could potentially ruin the career of one person and they also denigrate the experience of those who were truly victims.  

So we are now at a point where change is being forced on a culture where an undertone of condoning that same behavior (e.g., sexual misconduct) may still exist for some in leadership roles.  My salient point is that we should never had reached this point as leadership should have stepped up long ago and put this garbage to rest rather than just laugh along with the funny comments.


Cheers

Andraste


----------



## c_canuk

devil's advocate here... Let's say we completely stamp out all discrimination and prejudice in the CAF. Turn it into a SJW utopia of perfection.

What happens when the soldiers who made it though without ever having to deal with discrimination/prejudice make contact with external entities? 

How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison.


----------



## Andraste

Hi C Canuk,

To be clear I am not advocating any form of utopia as that is not plausible.  Unfortunately humans are biased, prejudiced and whatnot and we can never control for that.  What I am saying is that when it comes to aberrant behavior, as the forward face of Canadian society around the world, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.  Harassing behavior/attitudes in any guise (e.g. sexism, racism) needs to be addressed by the chain of command at all levels right down the section commander because it erodes teamwork and creates a poisoned environment for everyone irrespective who you are.  

What you are advocating is what is referred to as "_inoculation theory_" in that we (the CAF) should allow a bit of this to toughen troops for when they face it in the real world.  As a counter to that, by the time we get an individual in the CAF she/he will have already had at least two decades or more of living with societal intolerance, prejudice and discrimination for whatever their perceived difference is.  They will already be toughened.  We the CAF need to create an environment where it doesn't matter because you need to count on people irrespective of who they are to help you do your job be it a fire team partner or the clerk that processes your claims.  Condoning bad behavior on any level regardless of the reasoning lessens us as an institution IMHO.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## PuckChaser

We'll never have that environment when we pick people to join based on perceived imbalances in gender or ethnic minority representation. We tell people to identify themselves as different, give them a spot at the head of the line, and then expect them to forget about all that once they get through the system and join? Setting us up for failure right from the get-go.


----------



## c_canuk

Andraste said:
			
		

> Hi C Canuk,
> 
> To be clear I am not advocating any form of utopia as that is not plausible.  Unfortunately humans are biased, prejudiced and whatnot and we can never control for that.  What I am saying is that when it comes to aberrant behavior, as the forward face of Canadian society around the world, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.  Harassing behavior/attitudes in any guise (e.g. sexism, racism) needs to be addressed by the chain of command at all levels right down the section commander because it erodes teamwork and creates a poisoned environment for everyone irrespective who you are.
> 
> *What you are advocating is what is referred to as "inoculation theory" *in that we (the CAF) should allow a bit of this to toughen troops for when they face it in the real world.  As a counter to that, by the time we get an individual in the CAF she/he will have already had at least two decades or more of living with societal intolerance, prejudice and discrimination for whatever their perceived difference is.  They will already be toughened.  We the CAF need to create an environment where it doesn't matter because you need to count on people irrespective of who they are to help you do your job be it a fire team partner or the clerk that processes your claims.  Condoning bad behavior on any level regardless of the reasoning lessens us as an institution IMHO.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andraste



Actually, I did not advocate for anything of the sort. I literally wrote " I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison."

After accusing me of advocating for inoculation theory, your answer essentially boils down to literally we plan to do nothing.

We have some rudimentary indoc for persons going to various regions with clashing cultural ideals, I'm asking if we plan to do more. 

Part of our job is to be able to shrug off this sort of thing from outside entities. What are we going to do to ensure we have that ability. Are we engaging with the psychiatric community to see what can be done to harden the troops against it?


----------



## TCM621

My biggest problem with this whole thing is not the big picture of handling actually sexual misconduct. It is the idea that everyone is such a fragile flower that a dirty joke or perhaps an advance from a co-worker will send then in to a withering spiral of depression, etc. 

I remember being told, "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" and  to stand up to bullies or they will walk all over you.  Now we are helping to create a culture of victims. We should be tougher than the average and part of that is learning to deal with people who say or do mean things. 

Rather than coddle those who can't handle a little adversity,  we should empower them to deal with it themselves as much as possible. And it should go with out saying that any cases of rape, or the like, should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

I've been keeping an eye on this thread and while I'm sorry that the female in question had such a horrible experience that she felt the need to exit the military environment altogether, I feel I must speak up from the unique position as a recruit who spent well over a year at the school on multiple platoons, as well as regularly engaging with instructors and various staff/ranks of the school on a regular basis. 

Firstly, I'll be clear. Are there blatant examples of inappropriate statements or conduct exhibited from those present at the school, including recruits and otherwise? Yes. I have personally witnessed such incidents (to which details need not be given) from both sides. (Instructors and recruits) Rumours are rampant as well, which doesn't help. As with any corporation/establishment/place of employment etc. etc., anywhere, there are bad apples whose actions risk placing everyone in a bad light. But I have to interject with what I witnessed as the positive handling of anything related to sexual harassment while there, as I don't feel that the school is being looked at objectively during this current conversation.

During my time there, on each of the platoons I was on, instances involving even slight concerns brought to staff regarding sexual harassment were dealt with swiftly and were taken seriously and investigated. Consequences included (but were not limited to) recruits being removed from course, formal PRBs, MP involvement, etc. The different incidences ranged from verbal comments to physical incidences. It was taken very seriously. AND, it must be noted, as I feel it is often overlooked, there were cases where females were the aggressors/the ones at fault, NOT males. 

Perhaps I'm just lucky in that I had largely excellent staff who weren't going to tolerate such behaviour, but I really don't think so. I think the majority of pers in leadership roles involved with recruits try their best and take it seriously. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. But I don't want anyone thinking that females who go there are going to be abused, harassed, heckled, treated unfairly etc etc, OR males, for that matter. 

A certain level of 'thick skin' needs to be had, yes. And I'm wary of individuals who may not have a realistic view of what to expect going in. But if someone is legitimately made to feel personally unsafe and is ridiculed to any degree by superiors if their concerns are brought forward, then yes also--that issue needs to be resolved.

For the record, the school teaches/encourages recruits to try and handle concerns/issues at their own level before bringing things up. Talk to the individual/section leader/CS. If it can't be resolved, then involve staff. Obviously, yes, if it's a serious matter, staff can be notified directly, but the point is to teach CoC. I had no problems letting someone know if they ticked me off, but I'm also older and extremely assertive--sometimes too much so.

In any event, again, I'm sorry the female mentioned in above posts felt driven to leave the CAF under such poor circumstances. While we were told often that the school is not reflective of the military environment as a whole (things are VERY different when actually out of basic) sometimes it's difficult to remember that when immersed in turmoil while there.

Perhaps in the future she might reconsider. I thoroughly enjoy where I am and have been fortunate to work along-side some fantastic people.


----------



## Andraste

C Canuk,



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Actually, I did not advocate for anything of the sort. I literally wrote " I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison."



Actually, you indicated you were going to play devil's advocate so in effect you are advocating.  However, I never said you were advocating for prejudice or discrimination but was addressing your point of view.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> After accusing me of advocating for inoculation theory, your answer essentially boils down to literally we plan to do nothing.




Umm . . . never accused you of anything.  I merely pointed out that you were espousing a valuable tool in psychology  known as "inoculation theory".  We utilize that for stress or when people have phobias.  Specifically you bring them into contact with what they are afraid of (i.e., stresses them) and it helps to inoculate them.  My stand was that this is not needed for people who already experience intolerance based on who they are because they have lived with it for many years prior to joining the CAF.  The people who would benefit from it are those who have never experienced intolerance.

If you feel as though I insulted you by accusing you . . . my apologies as that was not my intent. I guess I should have been a bit more descriptive of what inoculation theory meant.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Part of our job is to be able to shrug off this sort of thing from outside entities. What are we going to do to ensure we have that ability. Are we engaging with the psychiatric community to see what can be done to harden the troops against it?



Shrugging off hate filed comments from outside entities based on being in their country at time war is fundamentally different from shrugging off intolerance from your own fellow soldiers, the two are not linked.  If an outside entity hates me because I am transgender or you because you are someone they equally despise well . . . just saying . . . you and I have already fought that battle so their comments will mean little to us.  But I get the sense you are talking about dealing with cultures who do not want us in their country . . . again that is different.  

Tcm621,



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> My biggest problem with this whole thing is not the big picture of handling actually sexual misconduct. It is the idea that everyone is such a fragile flower that a dirty joke or perhaps an advance from a co-worker will send then in to a withering spiral of depression, etc.



Seriously . . . an unwanted advance from another person be that male to male, female to female, female to male or male to female is the text book definition of sexual misconduct.  If it is not wanted it should not be given.  Dirty jokes . . . again if it denigrates a target group male or female . . . textbook definition of sexual harassment.  Let me ask you this . . . what you do if someone in your family came home and said a person at work keeps telling dirty jokes to them and making advances and this person is their boss?  Tell them to suck it up and grow a thicker skin?  If you say yes, I will call BS on that one.  



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I remember being told, "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" and  to stand up to bullies or they will walk all over you.  Now we are helping to create a culture of victims. We should be tougher than the average and part of that is learning to deal with people who say or do mean things.
> 
> Rather than coddle those who can't handle a little adversity,  we should empower them to deal with it themselves as much as possible. And it should go with out saying that any cases of rape, or the like, should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner.



That is exactly what we are doing. Sexual misconduct irrespective of your gender cannot be tolerated that include rude sexually charged comments, unwanted advances and sexual assault (unwanted touching to rape).  Again, I would ask you if your boss came up to you and suggested you could do better performance wise if you were receptive to his/her advances . . . what would you do?  The system in place now is designed to empower the victim by allowing him/her to come forward and report the person.  My point was the chain of command at all levels needs to ensure this type of behavior stops.  That is our jobs a leaders.

Cheers 

Andraste


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

c_canuk said:
			
		

> devil's advocate here... Let's say we completely stamp out all discrimination and prejudice in the CAF. Turn it into a SJW utopia of perfection.
> 
> What happens when the soldiers who made it though without ever having to deal with discrimination/prejudice make contact with external entities?
> 
> How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison.



Are you suggesting that a little bit of sexual harassment is good for them since it makes them harder? I would suggest that soldiers who grow up in an ethically challenged culture of prejudice, harassment, and general low ethics aren't hard- they're bitter, jaded, and angry. If you need an example, look no further than the Airbourne Regiment.

Conversely, soldiers who live by the CAF ethos, treat each other with respect, and act like professionals (and adults... and citizens of a first world nation) are MORE able to comprehend other cultures and adapt to the realities of complex theatres. We need more soldiers able to treat people with dignity and think rather than more brainwashed ones who believe that it's ok to carry on as we are. And yes- I am suggesting the ones who act in the manner discussed in the DesChamps report are the brainwashed ones. They've bought into an ethical organizational culture and demonstrated a lack of ethical behaviour, critical thinking, and backbone to act against those who still believe this behaviour is ok.


----------



## captloadie

BeyondTheNow,
What you described was all geared at how staff dealt with students. How did the CoC deal with staff when these issues arose? And if you didn't see any examples of this on your year at the school, it means it either was swept under the rug and instructors were protected, or action was taken behind closed doors where recruits weren't made aware of the outcomes (which I think is wrong, as if recruits know poor staff behaviour is punished, they will be more likely to trust the system).

We have another issue when it happens in the military. Victims have no place to escape. If I'm being sexually harassed at a job in the private sector, I can go home to get away, or I can quit and find the same job at different company. In the military, we force victims to live in and around the abuse. If you love being infantry or a fighter pilot, you can't leave and go somewhere else to do the job you love. That's why we need to fix our current culture. We can toughen members up when we deploy them using specific training if the need calls for it.


----------



## Andraste

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Firstly, I'll be clear. Are there blatant examples of inappropriate statements or conduct exhibited from those present at the school, including recruits and otherwise? Yes. I have personally witnessed such incidents (to which details need not be given) from both sides. (Instructors and recruits) Rumours are rampant as well, which doesn't help. As with any corporation/establishment/place of employment etc. etc., anywhere, there are bad apples whose actions risk placing everyone in a bad light. But I have to interject with what I witnessed as the positive handling of anything related to sexual harassment while there, as I don't feel that the school is being looked at objectively during this current conversation.



:goodpost:

BTN,

Agree completely . . . it is the bad apples which need to be routed out and I truly believe they are the minority.  Great post and a nice balanced perspective.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## McG

c_canuk said:
			
		

> devil's advocate here... Let's say we completely stamp out all discrimination and prejudice in the CAF. Turn it into a SJW utopia of perfection.
> 
> What happens when the soldiers who made it though without ever having to deal with discrimination/prejudice make contact with external entities?
> 
> How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison.


You are not "advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but" your whole post smacks of being an apologist for it all.  

How do we prepare our recruits for the experiences and reality of their future occupation?  With legitimate, indescriminate, hard, challenging training.

It is just stupid suggesting that there is any place in training for harassment, discrimination from prejudice, or abusive hazing.  I hope you were just having a low caffeine moment.


----------



## TCM621

[quote author=Andraste] 

Tcm621,

Seriously . . . an unwanted advance from another person be that male to male, female to female, female to male or male to female is the text book definition of sexual misconduct.  If it is not wanted it should not be given.  Dirty jokes . . . again if it denigrates a target group male or female . . . textbook definition of sexual harassment.  Let me ask you this . . . what you do if someone in your family came home and said a person at work keeps telling dirty jokes to them and making advances and this person is their boss?  Tell them to suck it up and grow a thicker skin?  If you say yes, I will call BS on that one.  
[/QUOTE] 

If someone makes an advance  maybe, just maybe,  that person likes the other person. And sometimes the advance will be unwanted but that does not make it sexual harassment. Just like a drunk dude trying to kiss a girl isn't sexual assault,  it is just people being people. If someone has been told in no uncertain terms that the advance is unwanted and persists,  he should be counselled and dealt with as needed. If a person forces him/herself on another and I see it they won't need the CF system to deal with it. There are lines and IMO Op honour is too vague. 

If my daughter came home and said, "Dad, this guy asked me to go out with him".  I would say, " I'll kill him", because I am a dad. But then I would ask, "well what did you say?"  If she said,  "This guy keeps asking me out and making suggestive comments. He won't leave me alone no matter how many times I tell him too." It would be a different matter. But I would also hope my daughter made every attempt to resolve it herself because I am attempting to raise a strong and self reliant person. 



> That is exactly what we are doing. Sexual misconduct irrespective of your gender cannot be tolerated that include rude sexually charged comments, unwanted advances and sexual assault (unwanted touching to rape).  Again, I would ask you if your boss came up to you and suggested you could do better performance wise if you were receptive to his/her advances . . . what would you do?  The system in place now is designed to empower the victim by allowing him/her to come forward and report the person.  My point was the chain of command at all levels needs to ensure this type of behavior stops.  That is our jobs a leaders.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andraste



See,  I think Op Honour is about looking good to civilians and SJWs. I know that there are assholes in the military and some of them cross a line. I think in very few cases are they cut and dried. A blanket solution is both a waste of time and in many cases more harm than its worth. 

As leaders, we just need to know our subordinates and promote their welfare. We don't need Op honour,  we need to stop treating that type of leadership as a fault. I have been told by a senior instructor of a leadership course that "[it]  wasn't leadership. That's like being a shop steward". We actively promote and encourage people like that. 

Leaders also need the ability to move people if issues arise. Not to shuffle problems but split up people who may have any sort of relationship that could cause issues . We are hamstrung in terms of what we can do because of any number of factors such are available positions and an unwillingness to act. In the recent past, my subunit had no less than 3 couples working on it. In each case 1 member was ranked than the other. In this case, there were no major issues that arose but they could have. Even if everything goes smoothly, there are biases there. Sgt Jim knows that Cpl Nancy is going to be unhappy if she has to do X job. He doesn't want to here about it later and,  really,  it isn't a big deal so I'll give it to corporal Bloggins instead. I'll bet non of that would even be conscious. 

Rather that create safe spaces and response centers, let's concentrate on teaching leaders that their subordinates welfare is their responsibility and give them the tools needed to deal with the issues that come up. We already have the systems in place to deal with major issues like the harassment complaint system and the CSD through the MPs.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> ... I think Op Honour is about looking good to civilians and SJWs. I know that there are assholes in the military and some of them cross a line. I think in very few cases are they cut and dried. A blanket solution is both a waste of time and in many cases more harm than its worth ...


Blanket rules/systems often get set up, though, when not enough individual opportunities for individual leaders to show leadership and/or use all the tools already at their disposal to deal with things - or senior leaders to support junior leaders who want to.  It only takes one "holy crap" to negate a thousand "atta boy's".  You've hit the nail on the head right here:


			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> As leaders, we just need to know our subordinates and promote their welfare. We don't need Op honour,  we need to stop treating that type of leadership as a fault. I have been told by a senior instructor of a leadership course that "[it]  wasn't leadership. That's like being a shop steward". We actively promote and encourage people like that.


Good post.


----------



## Andraste

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If someone makes an advance  maybe, just maybe,  that person likes the other person. And sometimes the advance will be unwanted but that does not make it sexual harassment.



There is mutual attraction . . . I like "x" and she/he likes me and has shown an interest, so I will approach the person and see where it goes (i.e., ask them out on a date).  If she/he declines, no harm no foul and I will move on.  However when you used the word "advance" in the context of thread on sexual misconduct the word in and of itself implies aggression on the part of one party against another.  I am going to make an advance on "x" even is she/he doesn't like me and actively pursue that person until they acquiesce.  In the military we "advance" on the enemy regardless of whether they want us to or not.  So, if the advance is unwanted and the person knows it is unwanted . . . textbook definition of sexual harassment.  In other words if you can't pursue the person civilly . . . back off.

I can say that within my 35 years of service I have never seen a sexual harassment complaint submitted because someone asked someone out on a date.     



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Just like a drunk dude trying to kiss a girl isn't sexual assault,  it is just people being people.



Seriously  :facepalm:. 

So a guy walks up to a girl in a bar and forcibly holds her against her will and plants an unwanted kiss on her and he gets a pass because why?  He is drunk?  It is people just being people?  So when does it become sexual assault in your opinion?  When he fondles her against her will, drags her into a dark secluded corner and forces himself on her?  Or does he get a pass because he is drunk.  By your logic then a drunk dude who walks up to you in bar and smacks you between the eyes is not guilty of assault . . . it is just people being people?  Or perhaps the drunk driver who kills someone should get a pass . . . just a good dude who is a little bit drunk?

Assault is assault and you don't get a pass because you are drunk.  Sorry, it is beliefs like this that perpetuate this "_it is only harmless fun so don't be such a delicate flower_" sentiment.





			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If someone has been told in no uncertain terms that the advance is unwanted and persists,  he should be counselled and dealt with as needed. If a person forces him/herself on another and I see it they won't need the CF system to deal with it. There are lines and IMO Op honour is too vague . . . _snip_ . . . See,  I think Op Honour is about looking good to civilians and SJWs. I know that there are assholes in the military and some of them cross a line. I think in very few cases are they cut and dried. A blanket solution is both a waste of time and in many cases more harm than its worth . . . _snip_ . . . Rather that create safe spaces and response centers, let's concentrate on teaching leaders that their subordinates welfare is their responsibility and give them the tools needed to deal with the issues that come up. We already have the systems in place to deal with major issues like the harassment complaint system and the CSD through the MPs.



Yes and we have been doing such a bang up job in dealing with this issue.  That is the problem, while some leaders take the appropriate action and deal with it, others do not and in fact condone poor behavior and sexual harassment.  To put this in context since you feel we have a system which already deals with it.  A statistics Canada survey from 2013 indicates that 7.5 % of women in the CAF ( 1 in13 women) were sexually assaulted during their career (more so on deployment) with this rising to 15.5% if you included rude remarks (dirty jokes at their expense) or unwanted advances.  Now that means that your daughter, wife, sister whoever should they pursue a career in the CAF has a statistically significant chance of being sexually assaulted or harassed . . . so where is all this great leadership you are referring to?  Who is looking after the welfare of their troops?  

To put it into further context by comparison .02% 0f men reported sexual assault with it rising to .08% if you included rude remarks and unwanted advances. 

So yup . . . we are doing a great job.  Does OP Honor have its problems?  Sure but it is still dealing with the problem instead of trying to cover things up, sweep it under the carpet or make excuses for the perpetrators of this abhorrent behavior by blaming the victims for being thinned skinned.


Andraste.


----------



## Jarnhamar

c_canuk said:
			
		

> How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison.



I'm all for harsh mental and physical training including exposure to verbal abuse and some physical manhandling but that's in a very controlled and regulated training environment.  Not someone  who takes it upon themselves to merit out some abuse  themselves because they can and think it's good for someone. 

I agree with you we need to expose our members to the harsh reality of the world but it has to be structured and relevant and not kept at a personal level.


----------



## Lightguns

Andraste said:
			
		

> There is mutual attraction . . . I like "x" and she/he likes me and has shown an interest, so I will approach the person and see where it goes (i.e., ask them out on a date).  If she/he declines, no harm no foul and I will move on.  However when you used the word "advance" in the context of thread on sexual misconduct the word in and of itself implies aggression on the part of one party against another.  I am going to make an advance on "x" even is she/he doesn't like me and actively pursue that person until they acquiesce.  In the military we "advance" on the enemy regardless of whether they want us to or not.  So, if the advance is unwanted and the person knows it is unwanted . . . textbook definition of sexual harassment.  In other words if you can't pursue the person civilly . . . back off.
> 
> I can say that within my 35 years of service I have never seen a sexual harassment complaint submitted because someone asked someone out on a date.
> 
> Seriously  :facepalm:.
> 
> So a guy walks up to a girl in a bar and forcibly holds her against her will and plants an unwanted kiss on her and he gets a pass because why?  He is drunk?  It is people just being people?  So when does it become sexual assault in your opinion?  When he fondles her against her will, drags her into a dark secluded corner and forces himself on her?  Or does he get a pass because he is drunk.  By your logic then a drunk dude who walks up to you in bar and smacks you between the eyes is not guilty of assault . . . it is just people being people?  Or perhaps the drunk driver who kills someone should get a pass . . . just a good dude who is a little bit drunk?
> 
> Assault is assault and you don't get a pass because you are drunk.  Sorry, it is beliefs like this that perpetuate this "_it is only harmless fun so don't be such a delicate flower_" sentiment.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and we have been doing such a bang up job in dealing with this issue.  That is the problem, while some leaders take the appropriate action and deal with it, others do not and in fact condone poor behavior and sexual harassment.  To put this in context since you feel we have a system which already deals with it.  A statistics Canada survey from 2013 indicates that 7.5 % of women in the CAF ( 1 in13 women) were sexually assaulted during their career (more so on deployment) with this rising to 15.5% if you included rude remarks (dirty jokes at their expense) or unwanted advances.  Now that means that your daughter, wife, sister whoever should they pursue a career in the CAF has a statistically significant chance of being sexually assaulted or harassed . . . so where is all this great leadership you are referring to?  Who is looking after the welfare of their troops?
> 
> To put it into further context by comparison .02% 0f men reported sexual assault with it rising to .08% if you included rude remarks and unwanted advances.
> 
> So yup . . . we are doing a great job.  Does OP Honor have its problems?  Sure but it is still dealing with the problem instead of trying to cover things up, sweep it under the carpet or make excuses for the perpetrators of this abhorrent behavior by blaming the victims for being thinned skinned.
> 
> 
> Andraste.



Nicely spoken!  Do you know the percentages for the greater Canadian society?  I am wondering because folks are always saying that the military, despite it's recruiting system, is just a reflection of the greater society.  I would thing that workplace sexual violence would be lower in a organization that does so much scientific hiring technique.  

Edit, I found it in Stats Can.  Sexual harassment in workplace; 4% in Quebec raising to a high of 7% in Ontario.  Sexual assault in workplace; 1% nationally raising to 6% for a life time employee; includes all touching, actual penetration is 1%.  Guess the military is not quite reflective of society on this issue!


----------



## c_canuk

MCG said:
			
		

> You are not "advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but" your whole post smacks of being an apologist for it all.
> 
> How do we prepare our recruits for the experiences and reality of their future occupation?  With legitimate, indescriminate, hard, challenging training.
> 
> It is just stupid suggesting that there is any place in training for harassment, discrimination from prejudice, or abusive hazing.  I hope you were just having a low caffeine moment.



Begging your pardon, but that's on you, not me.

I wrote literally this: "How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but *asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison.*"

Then when someone else also accused me of the same, clarified: "Part of our job is to be able to shrug off this sort of thing from outside entities. What are we going to do to ensure we have that ability. *Are we engaging with the psychiatric community to see what can be done to harden the troops against it?*"

Not sure where I implied we should allow some discrimination. I was just pointing out that we may need to improve how we train our troops to deal with it from entities outside our CoC. And not just from our Enemies but Neutrals, host countries and allies. I think you can understand my ire at being accused of being an apologist, and kindly would ask you to take that back.

It's really hard to have a grown up discussion about this, every time you make a point about how changes in one area may necessitate changes in another, people jump down your throat for shit you didn't even say and/or specifically said you weren't saying.

I don't appreciate being labelled an apologist just because I asked if we have a plan to mitigate damage from prejudice and discrimination from entities outside our control. It's a given that those behaviours are damaging, hence ongoing efforts to stamp it out. Op Honour being the latest iteration. What are we going to do about damage from the prejudice and discrimination we can't stamp out?

Do we have a plan?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Begging your pardon, but that's on you, not me.
> 
> I wrote literally this: "How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but *asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison.*"
> 
> Then when someone else also accused me of the same, clarified: "Part of our job is to be able to shrug off this sort of thing from outside entities. What are we going to do to ensure we have that ability. *Are we engaging with the psychiatric community to see what can be done to harden the troops against it?*"
> 
> Not sure where I implied we should allow some discrimination. I was just pointing out that we may need to improve how we train our troops to deal with it from entities outside our CoC. And not just from our Enemies but Neutrals, host countries and allies. I think you can understand my ire at being accused of being an apologist, and kindly would ask you to take that back.
> 
> It's really hard to have a grown up discussion about this, every time you make a point about how changes in one area may necessitate changes in another, people jump down your throat for crap you didn't even say and/or specifically said you weren't saying.
> 
> I don't appreciate being labelled an apologist just because I asked if we have a plan to mitigate damage from prejudice and discrimination from entities outside our control. It's a given that those behaviours are damaging, hence ongoing efforts to stamp it out. Op Honour being the latest iteration. What are we going to do about damage from the prejudice and discrimination we can't stamp out?
> 
> Do we have a plan?



I would suggest that sexual harassment and misconduct isn't a psychological issue but an ethical and leadership one. We need to increase our ethics training and strengthen it so that its less a yearly burden and more an engaging and educational experience. We then need to assess individuals on their ethics, including sexual harassment, and hold them to account. If we look at the DesChamps report clearly the CoC has failed to instill confidence that leadership throughout the CAF has dealt with this issue for a wide variety of issues (careerism, weak leadership, organizational cultures, etc).

There are many tools available to assess ethics and leadership that we could implement- for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.


----------



## TCM621

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I would suggest that sexual harassment and misconduct isn't a psychological issue but an ethical and leadership one. We need to increase our ethics training and strengthen it so that its less a yearly burden and more an engaging and educational experience. We then need to assess individuals on their ethics, including sexual harassment, and hold them to account. If we look at the DesChamps report clearly the CoC has failed to instill confidence that leadership throughout the CAF has dealt with this issue for a wide variety of issues (careerism, weak leadership, organizational cultures, etc).
> 
> There are many tools available to assess ethics and leadership that we could implement- for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.


I would argue that a failure to trust leadership is the problem not sexual misconduct. A certain amount of misconduct will happen, we can minimize it but not get rid of it. If someone doesn't trust their leaders to look after them when it comes to PERs , tastings,  etc. They are not automatically going to trust them for something big like sexual misconduct because the CAF has made them go through some OP honour briefings. 

In my career,  I have ran the gamut of supervisor types. From the just one of the guys type to the (and I quote verbatim) 'At the end of the day, you are all just paperwork to me" types and everything in between. I know what is like to be going through major issues with a CoC that just doesn't give a shit about you. If you can't trust your leadership, you probably won't go to them with a sexual misconduct or harassment problem until it is too late to use the tools we have in place. And now you end up with a victim who quits because they don't feel safe or respected in the military and,  in many cases, losing someone who could have remained an asset if they were set straight early enough. 

I reiterate, the problem isn't that the CAF is running rampant with rapists and misogynists but we do not do enough to have our leaders be trust worthy in the eyes of the subordinates. Op honour doesn't address that IMO.


----------



## MARS

c_canuk said:
			
		

> What happens when the soldiers who made it though without ever having to deal with discrimination/prejudice make contact with external entities?
> 
> How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.



Like the myriad of other issues that the military does not prepare us for, we rely on our Canadian/Western democratic value system.

I have made it through 25 years of service without once witnessing murder, for example, and without the CAF spending ANY time "preparing" me for it, but I still know it when I see it and I know that it is wrong and I know to tell someone in authority.  Same applies to rape, robbery...whatever other crimes or social ills (prejudice and discrimination) you want to throw out there.

Because I am not an idiot.

The CAF isn't the only place where we are socialized to an appropriate value system.  It is probably the LAST place.  It starts with the familial institution (parents), continues with the educational institution (teachers), reinforced by religious institutions (for those who are part of them), legislative institutions (politicians making laws) and finally judiciary institutions (judges enforcing laws).  Indeed a core responsibility of all of those institutions is to instill in citizens these core values, like "don't sexually harass people". THAT is the preparation phase. The CAF should play NO unique role in "preparing" us for dealing with sexual assault/harassment/exploitation on deployment, except to reinforce what anyone...and everyone - except the most retarded troglodytes among us - have already assimilated from 17+ years of living in Canadian society.  And we certainly do not need to engage the psychiatric community...WTF is that all about?

We don't need a "plan" - this isn't that complicated.  We need to get some of our folks to stop being dumb.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ... I would thing that workplace sexual violence would be lower in a organization that does so much scientific hiring technique ...


I'll let others pick on the bit in yellow, but with military and, to a lesser extent, policing organizations, there's also a case to be made that there should be fewer such incidents, given the emphasis on following orders in a structured way under sometimes difficult circumstances that don't exist as much outside these groups.  

I know, the systems are far from perfect, but this is also part of where the "we hold some groups to a higher standard" comes from.


			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ... for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.


Ballsy, that would be, both for the system doing it, and the leader who'd be comfortable about what his/her troops would say about them.


			
				MARS said:
			
		

> We don't need a "plan" - this isn't that complicated.  We need to get some of our folks to stop being dumb.


Well said -- simple, but not easy.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I would argue that a failure to trust leadership is the problem not sexual misconduct. A certain amount of misconduct will happen, we can minimize it but not get rid of it. If someone doesn't trust their leaders to look after them when it comes to PERs , tastings,  etc. They are not automatically going to trust them for something big like sexual misconduct because the CAF has made them go through some OP honour briefings.
> 
> In my career,  I have ran the gamut of supervisor types. From the just one of the guys type to the (and I quote verbatim) 'At the end of the day, you are all just paperwork to me" types and everything in between. I know what is like to be going through major issues with a CoC that just doesn't give a crap about you. If you can't trust your leadership, you probably won't go to them with a sexual misconduct or harassment problem until it is too late to use the tools we have in place. And now you end up with a victim who quits because they don't feel safe or respected in the military and,  in many cases, losing someone who could have remained an asset if they were set straight early enough.
> 
> I reiterate, the problem isn't that the CAF is running rampant with rapists and misogynists but we do not do enough to have our leaders be trust worthy in the eyes of the subordinates. Op honour doesn't address that IMO.



I agree. That's why we need systems that allow subordinates input into the CoC, such as a 360 degree evaluation system. Attached is an example of one such system that focusses on leader integrity and ethics. It was prepared by Prof Northouse, who is a leading author in leadership studies.


----------



## Andraste

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I would argue that a failure to trust leadership is the problem not sexual misconduct. A certain amount of misconduct will happen, we can minimize it but not get rid of it. If someone doesn't trust their leaders to look after them when it comes to PERs , tastings,  etc. They are not automatically going to trust them for something big like sexual misconduct because the CAF has made them go through some OP honour briefings.



I'm sorry, your argument is cyclical at best . . . we don't have an issue with sexual misconduct it is lack of trust in leaders?  If leaders turn a blind eye to sexual harassment/assault then yes, I agree who is going to trust their leadership.  However let's not be naïve here and say sexual misconduct is not the issue . . . it is definitely an issue as the statistics I quoted in reply to your other posts clearly illustrate that point.

Poor leadership in the CAF is a noted problem at all levels and on that I think we can all agree.  As I noted in my reply, some leaders (even at high levels) have been doing a poor job at shutting this type of behavior down and in some cases condoning it.  That is why we are forced to give way to mega entities such as OP Honour because the leadership to date has been all but absent in policing their own backyard so now somebody has to force them to do so . . . it should never have come to this.  In addition, OP Honour it is not just about sitting through some briefings and irrespective of what some may feel it is not about finger pointing.  It is designed to identify the problem (sexual misconduct - irrespective of gender) and a way of dealing with it.  It provides a mechanism outside of the chain of command to report these issues.  You do realize that a high percentage of sexual misconduct is perpetrated by an individual in a position of authority over the other person.  That is why there has to be a reporting chain outside of the chain of command.  If your boss was harassing you at work would you want to go to her/him and ask them to investigate your harassment complaint against them?

Yes, restoring faith in leadership will help create an environment of trust and perhaps more people will come forward.  However once the person comes forward then the leadership has to act appropriately and deal accordingly with the perpetrator, not sweep it under the carpet, ignore it or blame the victim . . . that is the real problem.  Until that occurs then sexual misconduct and any form of harassment will always be an issue.  OP Honour is designed to ensure the "_kids aren't running the candy shop"_ making up their own rules as they go along".  As I said before, it should never have come to this as there are a lot of great leaders out there who now have to toe the line with those leaders who still think things are 5x5.

A


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I would suggest that sexual harassment and misconduct isn't a psychological issue but an ethical and leadership one. We need to increase our ethics training and strengthen it so that its less a yearly burden and more an engaging and educational experience. We then need to assess individuals on their ethics, including sexual harassment, and hold them to account. If we look at the DesChamps report clearly the CoC has failed to instill confidence that leadership throughout the CAF has dealt with this issue for a wide variety of issues (careerism, weak leadership, organizational cultures, etc).
> 
> There are many tools available to assess ethics and leadership that we could implement- for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.



I don't trust the DesChamps report.  There are issues; some of the women involved stated they found the questions, discussions "leading" for example.

FWIW, and this is just my opinion...

We already HAD policies, regulations, orders..you name it...in place to deal with harassment, assault, all of this stuff.  The problem is...they were not being applied and employed.

I agree this is mostly a LEADERSHIP issue.  If LEADERS, at all levels, applied the policies, regulations, orders, CSD, RMs, etc etc the way they were supposed to...there would be no need for OP HONOUR.

Who is responsible for harassment stuff, ultimately?  ROs...who are they?  COs, Cmdts, etc.  If a case was mishandled...are they not responsible for it?  If they mishandle a case, complaint, etc are they then held to account?  In some cases, for sure, the answer is 'no'.  

Leadership and deterrence are what is needed now to get those who aren't paying attention to pay attention.  At all rank levels.  

In all honesty...we are doing 'more with less' all the time.  Ethics Programs are part of our (minimum) yearly trg requirements, but the scope of OP HONOUR can't be supported by the unit level Ethic Coord's.  

This is a leadership task.  There were enough rules and policies and corrective tools in place.  If those weren't being used before, the only thing that will make the change desired is holding people, at all levels, to account for their performance and/or conduct deficiencies.  Hey...we even have DAODs about that stuff.  How odd.

But, much like CFPAS...let's not just issue stern direction and marching orders from the top to "follow orders and policy, no questions, get on with it"...we'll reinvent the wheel instead.  "If we make it look broken by not using it right, we won't have to use it at all!"


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> There are many tools available to assess ethics and leadership that we could implement- for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.



If you're willing to blanket everyone, no matter their knowledge or personal conviction on the item, why not just give the test, as part of the recruiting process and bar anyone who fails it, from the military, period? Oh, and add about another month to the already archaic recruiting process already in place.

It would have about the same impact as your suggestion.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you're willing to blanket everyone, no matter their knowledge or personal conviction on the item, why not just give the test, as part of the recruiting process and bar anyone who fails it, from the military, period? Oh, and add about another month to the already archaic recruiting process already in place.
> 
> It would have about the same impact as your suggestion.



Blanket everyone? Who suggested that? I stated that there were tools to prevent and punish sexyal harrassment and they weren't being used. So it's a leadership problem. The system for evaluation of leaders at all levels allows for input and opens transparency. I can give you a list of academic work that show that 360 and like systems work well for professional development and improvement (ie- the PDR). It has nothing to do with recruiting.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't trust the DesChamps report.  There are issues; some of the women involved stated they found the questions, discussions "leading" for example.
> 
> FWIW, and this is just my opinion...
> 
> We already HAD policies, regulations, orders..you name it...in place to deal with harassment, assault, all of this stuff.  The problem is...they were not being applied and employed.
> 
> I agree this is mostly a LEADERSHIP issue.  If LEADERS, at all levels, applied the policies, regulations, orders, CSD, RMs, etc etc the way they were supposed to...there would be no need for OP HONOUR.
> 
> Who is responsible for harassment stuff, ultimately?  ROs...who are they?  COs, Cmdts, etc.  If a case was mishandled...are they not responsible for it?  If they mishandle a case, complaint, etc are they then held to account?  In some cases, for sure, the answer is 'no'.
> 
> Leadership and deterrence are what is needed now to get those who aren't paying attention to pay attention.  At all rank levels.
> 
> In all honesty...we are doing 'more with less' all the time.  Ethics Programs are part of our (minimum) yearly trg requirements, but the scope of OP HONOUR can't be supported by the unit level Ethic Coord's.
> 
> This is a leadership task.  There were enough rules and policies and corrective tools in place.  If those weren't being used before, the only thing that will make the change desired is holding people, at all levels, to account for their performance and/or conduct deficiencies.  Hey...we even have DAODs about that stuff.  How odd.
> 
> But, much like CFPAS...let's not just issue stern direction and marching orders from the top to "follow orders and policy, no questions, get on with it"...we'll reinvent the wheel instead.  "If we make it look broken by not using it right, we won't have to use it at all!"



I'm well aware of the pokicy, orders, etc that existed prior to Op HONOUR and agree it's mostly a leadership issue. However, if leadership failed in the 1990's (the CAR) and recently (despite your thoughts on the report it is the bar we have to go with until someone comes up with a new one). 

I'm simply suggesting replacing the PDR with a 360-esque system including ethics would give transparency to issues and give the CoC exposure to things they may not know about otherwise. Command can then make their own decisions on the info. I don't think it's unreasonable, particularly if matched with education


----------



## GGHG_Cadet

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> My biggest problem with this whole thing is not the big picture of handling actually sexual misconduct. It is the idea that everyone is such a fragile flower that a dirty joke or perhaps an advance from a co-worker will send then in to a withering spiral of depression, etc.
> ...
> Rather than coddle those who can't handle a little adversity,  we should empower them to deal with it themselves as much as possible. And it should go with out saying that any cases of rape, or the like, should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner.



Have you actually read the Deschamps report or at least the executive summary? It certainly doesn't appear so. Here are some excerpts to respond to your ideas above: 



> *Culture of the CAF
> *
> ...the ERA’s consultations revealed a sexualized environment in the CAF, particularly among recruits and non- commissioned members, characterized by the frequent use of swear words and highly degrading expressions that reference women’s bodies, sexual jokes, innuendos, discriminatory comments with respect to the abilities of women, and unwelcome sexual touching. Cumulatively, such conduct creates an environment that is hostile to women and LGTBQ members, and is conducive to more serious incidents of sexual harassment and assault.
> ...
> The ERA found that members appear to become inured to this sexualized culture as they move up the ranks. For example, non-commissioned officers (NCOs), both men and women, appear to be generally desensitized to the sexualized culture. Officers tend to excuse incidents of inappropriate conduct on the basis that the CAF is merely a reflection of civilian society. There is also a strong perception that senior NCOs are responsible for imposing a culture where no one speaks up and which functions to deter victims from reporting sexual misconduct.
> 
> As a result of these attitudes, there is a broadly held perception in the lower ranks that those in the chain of command either condone inappropriate sexual conduct, or are willing to turn a blind-eye to such incidents.



On empowering people to deal with it themselves (i.e. at the lowest level) and taking a harsh stance on unacceptable behaviour:


> *Processes and Procedures*
> ... the emphasis on the use of self-help techniques and on resolving the complaint at the lowest level is problematic. Victims will generally not be comfortable taking a confrontational position with their harasser, particularly when the harasser was of a higher rank. Moreover, many interviewees who did bring their complaint forward to a supervisor reported that the complaint was not taken seriously. The ERA found that the pressure to settle complaints at the lowest level functions to stifle complaints and intimidate complainants; it has the very opposite effect of a zero tolerance policy. Formal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is also offered to victims, however the ERA found that these procedures are generally inappropriate in cases of sexual harassment.
> 
> The ERA also heard that even where complaints of sexual harassment are ultimately held to be well-founded, the resulting sanction was generally perceived as meaningless—a “slap on the wrist”—and ineffective as a deterrent.
> ...
> Even more serious problems were reported with respect to the procedures in place to investigate sexual assault. The ERA is particularly concerned by the reports it heard of the lack of appropriate skills demonstrated by the military police. While the ERA met with a number of dedicated members of the military police, many were confused about the relevant policies, insensitive to the problem of sexual assault, lacked training on the basic elements of the offence (including the legal concept of consent), and were unaware of the available resources to support victims. Further, the ERA heard that low- level assaults, and assaults that do not result in physical injury, tend to be ignored, and charges in these cases are often not laid.



If you are interested, you can read more here- http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-support-services/external-review-sexual-mh-2015/summary.page.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest - preliminary hearing started this week, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> A preliminary hearing into allegations of sexual assault and exploitation of a young cadet by a high ranking military officer got underway Tuesday in an Edmonton courtroom.
> 
> Lt.-Col. Mason Stalker, commander of 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, in Edmonton, was arrested in July 2015 on 10 charges. The charges, including sexual assault, relate to alleged incidents involving a military cadet in Edmonton between 1998 and 2007.
> 
> On Tuesday, the Crown withdrew one count of breach of trust, but the other nine charges are still in place. The details of the preliminary hearing are protected by a publication ban, as is the identity of the complainant.
> 
> The incidents were investigated by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, a unit within the Canadian Forces Military Police Group, which charged Stalker on July 28, 2015.
> 
> The military confirmed the charges Stalker faces relate to a single victim, though the investigative service would not release the person’s age.
> 
> Maj. Doug Keirstead, a spokesman for the Canadian Cadet Organizations, said the offences allegedly occurred while Stalker was a mentor with the 2551 Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps in Edmonton.
> 
> Stalker was released from custody on $2,500 bail shortly after his arrest, with conditions in place prohibiting him from contacting cadets under the age of 18 and staying away from places where children gather. Last September, Stalker opted for trial by jury.
> 
> Stalker has twice received a Meritorious Service Medal for his role in Canada’s war in Afghanistan. In July 2015, he led the military’s fight against wildfires in northern Saskatchewan.
> 
> He assumed his latest post in August 2014, but was suspended pending the outcome of the court case.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This, from The Canadian Press, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> A high-ranking military officer accused of sex crimes has been ordered to stand trial.
> 
> Lt.-Col. Mason Stalker, commander of the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry in Edmonton, was arrested last year on 10 charges.
> 
> Following a preliminary hearing this week, a judge has determined the 41-year-old will proceed to trial on four counts of sexual exploitation and three counts of sexual assault.
> 
> The charges relate to alleged incidents involving a military cadet in Edmonton between 1998 and 2007.
> 
> No trial date has been set and Stalker has chosen to have a jury trial.
> 
> Stalker has been suspended from his post pending the outcome of the court case.


----------



## TCM621

ReeceO, 

I think the fact that they don't trust their leaders has a lot to do with they don't feel comfortable coming to them with problems. If you can't trust your leader to look out for your interests on the little things, you won't think about going to them with big problems. 

Does anyone think we have a culture of trust between the ranks in the CAF? I have had leaders I trust, as I am sure everyone else has, and I try to be one my subordinates can trust but overall I think we have a culture of distrust. Jnr ranks don't trust Snr NCOs, No one trust officer's and officers don't trust NCMs not to think for themselves. Just listen to the talk in your unit for a few weeks and you will hear a hundred such sentiments expressed. 

If my subordinates don't feel comfortable coming to me over a sexual harassment issue,  the problem isn't the overly sexual culture in the CAF. The problem is that I have failed as a leader. I have failed to prove to them that I have their best interests at heart and that they can trust me to do right by them to the best of my abilities. Maybe the problem isn't the culture of the CAF but the fact that we keep promoting wastes of skin for reasons I have yet to fathom. On my more cynical days,  I feel that we get good leaders in the CAF in spite of our promotion system rather than because of it. 

To sum up: Leadership, Leadership, Leadership.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Does anyone think we have a culture of trust between the ranks in the CAF? I have had leaders I trust, as I am sure everyone else has, and I try to be one my subordinates can trust but overall I think we have a culture of distrust. Jnr ranks don't trust Snr NCOs, No one trust officer's and officers don't trust NCMs not to think for themselves. Just listen to the talk in your unit for a few weeks and you will hear a hundred such sentiments expressed.



That's a pretty uncomfortable truth in a lot of cases.  I've found the level of trust between subordinates and leaders (and back) is directly related to how career orientated the other person comes off as. In the case of NCMs and NCOs how emersed int he buds network they are too.



> If my subordinates don't feel comfortable coming to me over a sexual harassment issue,  the problem isn't the overly sexual culture in the CAF. The problem is that I have failed as a leader. I have failed to prove to them that I have their best interests at heart and that they can trust me to do right by them to the best of my abilities.



I personally don't think the solve it at the lowest level mantra works for NCMs or even NCOs. Lower level hierarchies are usually pretty tight and the concern about people closing ranks when a problem arises is very real.  You as a leader might do a great job at proving you have their best interests at heart but if your next level of leadership doesn't then it's a lot less effective.


----------



## TCM621

I think people misunderstand the "lowest level" sometimes. Sometimes the lowest level is the CO. But if it is something that can be handled by the WO or Sgt then let them handle it. However, even in the case where the CO will be the one solving it, your immediate supervisor should be your POC. I think much of the problems center around the feeling that there is no support for the victim. Having leaders you trust would go a long way to eliminate that problem. If you know that your boss will do whatever he or she can to solve the problem, you won't feel alone or helpless.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I think people misunderstand the "lowest level" sometimes. Sometimes the lowest level is the CO. But if it is something that can be handled by the WO or Sgt then let them handle it. However, even in the case where the CO will be the one solving it, your immediate supervisor should be your POC. I think much of the problems center around the feeling that there is no support for the victim. Having leaders you trust would go a long way to eliminate that problem. If you know that your boss will do whatever he or she can to solve the problem, you won't feel alone or helpless.



"There is a great deal of talk about loyalty from the bottom to the top. Loyalty from the top down is even more necessary and much less prevalent. One of the most frequently noted characteristics of great men who have remained great is loyalty to their subordinates." 

Patton, War As I Knew It (1947); also quoted in Patton's One-Minute Messages: Tactical Leadership Skills for Business Management (1995) by Charles M. Province, p. 88


----------



## TCM621

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> "There is a great deal of talk about loyalty from the bottom to the top. Loyalty from the top down is even more necessary and much less prevalent. One of the most frequently noted characteristics of great men who have remained great is loyalty to their subordinates."
> 
> Patton, War As I Knew It (1947); also quoted in Patton's One-Minute Messages: Tactical Leadership Skills for Business Management (1995) by Charles M. Province, p. 88


It is one of those things all great leaders have but it is seen as the least important thing by the people who actually evaluate leaders. Some people even consider it a bad thing. 

To give an example: probably the best CO I ever had. He was so well liked he received a spontaneous 3 minute ovation at his change of command. I had an issue with my son's health and at the same time my mother had a heart attack. We were on a 3 month deployment and the clerks were discussing whether I could get CTA to get home. The CO walked in and said,  "put it on my credit card and we will deal with it later".  Less than 48 hours later I was home. I will never forget that.  He drove us hard and drove his leadership even harder. But he knew all his people by sight if not name and you knew he was aware of what his crew was going through. 

When people talk about leaders they would follow to hell and back it isn't because of their stunning situation briefs. It is because they know and trust that they will do the best job they can for  each person in their command.


----------



## mariomike

Aug 16, 2016 

Canadian soldier charged with sexual assault in Jamaica
http://www.680news.com/2016/08/16/canadian-soldier-charged-with-sexual-assault-in-jamaica/
A Canadian Forces corporal has been charged with sexual assault after an alleged incident involving another member of the military.


----------



## mariomike

August 17, 2016 

Cadet camp instructor at CFB Borden faces sex assault charges
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cadet-camp-instructor-at-cfb-borden-faces-sex-assault-charges-1.3032766
OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces have charged a civilian instructor at a cadet camp over an alleged failure to disclose his HIV-positive status prior to having a sexual relationship with a member of the military.

Military authorities say they believe he may have had other sexual partners and are asking anyone who has concerns or information to come forward.


----------



## Lumber

mariomike said:
			
		

> August 17, 2016
> 
> Cadet camp instructor at CFB Borden faces sex assault charges
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cadet-camp-instructor-at-cfb-borden-faces-sex-assault-charges-1.3032766
> OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces have charged a civilian instructor at a cadet camp over an alleged failure to disclose his HIV-positive status prior to having a sexual relationship with a member of the military.
> 
> Military authorities say they believe he may have had other sexual partners and are asking anyone who has concerns or information to come forward.



Having worked at Blackdown one summer, I'm actually surprised this is the first article I've seen to come out of there...


----------



## Drew Grey

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/04/03/male-rape-in-the-military-being-confronted.html

Simply appalling. I know I may be behind on the times and I'm sure this is old knowledge but what the ****?!?!

What kind of sick idiot would do such a thing for "power" and "dominance"

Is this common place in the CF as it is in the American military? This article is enough to make one NOT want to join the CF. 

Simply sickening. Like honestly? I am in the process of getting into the military and I WANT TO KNOW...is this common place amongst males? Any words from current members in the CF? Do you deal with this garbage?


----------



## ModlrMike

I would presume that the incidence in the CF is much lower than in the US forces. We have a different service culture and reporting mechanisms. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but in almost 40 years of service I've yet to come across a case.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I have 31 years of service and have never personally run across a case. I'm sure that others' experiences may vary.

To the OP- Why would you just assume that the service culture in the CF is similar to the US? Even in saying that, you would have to assume that the article in question is accurate- accuracy I cannot assess one way or another.


----------



## Lightguns

It is not common at all, the incidence that I know of that can be considered sexual assault was the depositing of a cigar up the rear end of an unconscious subordinate by a Naval officer.  While minor in nature, there was penetration and thus sexual assault.


----------



## Halifax Tar

lol I have never been part of or seen male on male rape in 16 or 17 years in the service.  And I am in the Navy!  (Insert your rum, sodomy and the lash jokes here) 

I question the validity of this article.  While its not a stretch to think this has and will happen in the US Military I would suspect its occurrence ratio is no more frequent than in general population.  Same with us.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lightguns said:
			
		

> It is not common at all, the incidence that I know of that can be considered sexual assault was the depositing of a cigar up the rear end of an unconscious subordinate by a Naval officer.  While minor in nature, there was penetration and thus sexual assault.



I'm not sure I would call that minor.  This also made headlines.


----------



## gryphonv

One thing you have to realize is the military is a snapshot of our population as a whole. Crimes that happen with the Civilian Population, can happen in the Military.

While my time has been short, I personally haven't seen anything that can be construed as Rape. But in Canada, rape is at one end of the spectrum of 'Sexual Assault'. That is really another debate.

But one thing is certain none of this is tolerated today in the military. In fact I would say you are even safer in the military from any form of sexual assault than in the public because of recent attention it has had in the media and the directives that had been implemented as a result. 

One thing is certain though, don't think just because its the military, you are more or less likely to experience crimes. Overall if you look at stats, we usually are on par in the military as with the rest of Canada (with some slight variation).


----------



## Lightguns

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I would call that minor.  This also made headlines.


Concur, I am not sure legally where minor ends and rape begins.  I want to call it rape but that can if worms thing.....

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## mariomike

Drew Grey said:
			
		

> Is this common place in the CF as it is in the American military?



Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/114851.475
20 pages.

Rape/ sexual harassment in reserves?? 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/109012.0
"So I recently dropped off my applications, but my parents and a person of great influence have been "warning" me of how I might get raped by other men whilst in the military,..."

How to get family on board
http://army.ca/forums/threads/13678/post-1178801.html#msg1178801


			
				lzrlightshow said:
			
		

> But every time i bring it up to my parents (i need their consent because i'm not 18 yet) they tell me that they will never approve of it, because they think that the army is full of violent angry people, and that if i were to join i would get beaten (at one point they even said i would be gang raped by 4 other gay men).



Difference between reserve's part-time BMQ and summer full-time BMQ?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/109707/post-1216499.html#msg1216499
"My parents are getting super scared of me buttraped by other men so I'd seriously appreciate people's experience on the matter"

etc...
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+raped&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=EkfAV_WxMqqC8Qe3_r7oCw&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:army.ca+sexual&start=0


----------



## Eye In The Sky

27 years in, worked at lost of various units - field units, operational sqn, HQs, double digit # of different training establishments.  I've never heard of or personally known of a rape case in the CAF between members.  The only one that comes to my mind was the one recently (last 2 years?) at Shearwater but that was Royal Navy members accused by a Canadian civilian, on a CAF base.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Drew Grey said:
			
		

> Is this common place in the CF as it is in the American military? This article is enough to make one NOT want to join the CF.



If that's enough to make you not want to join the CF it may be a good thing considering what can happen to you if you hit an IED or get shot.

You should google some graphic pictures and videos of that stuff; it too may make you change your mind.


----------



## Blackadder1916

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> . . . in almost 40 years of service I've yet to come across a case.





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> . . . 31 years of service and have never personally run across a case. I'm sure that others' experiences may vary.





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 27 years in, worked at lost of various units - . . . never heard of or personally known of a rape case in the CAF between members.  . . .



Huh?  Maybe I've just been unlucky but, during my service (and I've been long retired from the mob), I was aware of three cases of male on male rape - two of those were in the 1970s (one overseas on UN ops) and other in the 1980s.  I suppose that being in the medical world some of the nastier things that happen to people become part of your work.  Of those, two of the incidents ended in court, the other not.  As a note, I've only had similar involvement/knowledge of two incidents with female victims.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest report ...


> The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, released online today the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) second progress report on addressing inappropriate sexual behaviour.
> 
> The report outlines the progress achieved by the CAF in the first six months of 2016 across the four major pillars of Operation HONOUR – understanding the issue of harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, responding more decisively to incidents, supporting victims more effectively, and preventing the occurrence of such behaviours in the first place. The report also addresses progress in relation to the 10 recommendations of the External Review Authority, former Supreme Court Justice Mme. Marie Deschamps.
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces is only beginning to implement the change identified in Operation HONOUR, which though now well underway, will take years to instill and consolidate. Most of the initiatives generating this change are in their early stages. So too is the organization’s ability to measure the outcomes that are beginning to emerge. There are initial indications however, that change is occurring across the organization and individual members are being influenced.
> 
> *Quick Facts*
> 
> Improving support to victims was a key priority for the first year of Operation HONOUR. Incidents of harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour and sexual offences are still occurring in the Canadian Armed Forces, making it critical that victims have the care, support and response options they need. Victim support has been enhanced through several key initiatives including expanded hours of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre; increased training for military health care professionals, military police and prosecutors; decisive action to ensure that victims are kept better informed throughout the investigative and judicial process; and improved victim support services from military police.
> 
> Another area of focus has been on gaining a much more complete understanding of the precise nature of the problem, in order to develop a model for a deliberate, long-term, sustainable change of culture. The Canadian Armed Forces contracted Statistics Canada to conduct a survey between April and June 2016 to collect information regarding: the prevalence of sexual misconduct within the military; the reporting of harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour; as well as awareness of both Operation HONOUR and associated support mechanisms. This is the first time the Canadian Armed Forces has conducted a pan-organizational survey specifically on this subject. More than 40,000 Regular Force and Primary Reserve Canadian Armed Forces members participated in the Statistics Canada survey, sharing their experiences and perspectives. The survey results, which will be published in the late Fall, will provide the institution with a comprehensive baseline that will shape ongoing and future action, including policy development, program review and training modernization and a level of insight that the Canadian Armed Forces has not previously possessed.
> 
> _*Other Highlights of the progress report include:*_
> 
> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service has established dedicated teams of sexual offence investigators within each regional office to investigate all such complaints. These Sexual Offence Response Teams have been established with the addition of 18 new investigator positions distributed nationally.
> 
> The Director of Military Prosecutions has directed that offences of a sexual nature be given scheduling priority and that every effort will be made to ensure that the same prosecutor handles the case from beginning to end to ensure that these cases to move through the military justice system as expeditiously as possible and to avoid the victim having to recount their version of events on multiple occasions to different individuals
> 
> To ensure consistent investigations across the organization, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal recently directed that all criminal offences of a sexual nature be investigated by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and policy changes are underway to ensure that victims are provided immediate support by frontline military police.
> 
> In cases of allegations of sexual assault where an investigator is considering not laying a charge, National Investigation Service investigators must consult a military prosecutor in order to ensure concurrence with the assessment of the investigator not to lay charges. This is a change, as in the past the decision not to lay a charge could be made unilaterally by investigators without seeking legal advice.
> 
> A comprehensive training needs analysis has been completed to identify gaps in current programs and curricula with respect to Operation HONOUR related topics and to recommend solutions that will improve the content and delivery of training across the Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> In the period of April to July 2016, a total of 148 incidents of harmful sexual behaviour were reported to the chain of command.  Of these, 97 remain ongoing and 51 investigations have now been completed. A total of thirty individuals received career-impacting disciplinary and/or administrative action. Those convicted of disciplinary action faced consequences including fines and reduction in rank. Administrative consequences ranged from warnings and probation to removal from command positions and dismissal from the Canadian Armed Forces. Ten cases were ruled unfounded by authorities and three cases were referred to civilian authorities. In four incidents, the alleged offender was not identified and no further action was possible. In one case, the members involved successfully participated in alternate dispute resolution. The remaining 3 cases were disciplinary matters that did not fall within the parameters of Operation HONOUR ...


You can download the report (51 page PDF) here.

A bit of media coverage:

_*"Canadian Armed Forces punish 30 for sexual misconduct in military ranks"*_***
_*"30 Canadian Forces members punished for sexual misconduct, 97 cases ongoing"*_
_*"Sexual offense complaints in Canada military up 22 percent: report"*_

*** - Although the _Toronto Star_ may not be in the best position to pontificate on this issue these days ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nothing unexpected here.

I am fairly sure that the CDS knew that, no matter what news he would bear, the medias would spin it in a negative way. That's how you sell paper (or electrons these days), not by having fluffy positive news (unless about Trudeau Jr.).

If the news had been about an improvement, it would have either been ignored by the media (best scenario) or spun as the CAF reverting to its "old habit" of hiding the truth and "not confronting the (alleged by the media without proof)facts".

I can't wait to see the results of the Statistics Canada study. First of all, they are pretty professional types and would know how to prepare a proper survey with the cross checking questions required to ensure neutral approach. Second with more than 40,000 participants (about half the CAF population or more), the statistical validity of the results should have a very high level of certainty and be very closely representative of reality - unlike some other "investigation" by commissioners with pre-conceived ideas that pick and chose the witnesses they wanted to hear.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Huh?  Maybe I've just been unlucky but, during my service (and I've been long retired from the mob), I was aware of three cases of male on male rape - two of those were in the 1970s (one overseas on UN ops) and other in the 1980s.  I suppose that being in the medical world some of the nastier things that happen to people become part of your work.  Of those, two of the incidents ended in court, the other not.  As a note, I've only had similar involvement/knowledge of two incidents with female victims.



A former regiment of mine made the national papers several times for various sexual assault related transgressions. The ones I can recall resulted in jail time and 'dismissed the service' for the guilty parties. The events I recall personally were mainly identified through first class work by the SNCO net, who were fully supported by the chain of command. Most of these crimes resulted on jail time for the guilty parties and 'dismissed the service'.

Not to say we may be lacking in this regard but, IMHO, where the CoC second guesses or 'disempowers' their SNCOs, the wheels can come off pretty fast.


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am fairly sure that the CDS knew that, no matter what news he would bear, the medias would spin it in a negative way.


Did we read the same articles because I did not see the negative spin. Aside from one quoted complaint in the CBC article, everything seems to be selling DND's message: we are making good (but not yet irreversible) progress.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That's because, MCG, and this is a personal opinion here, these type of news articles are in the category where people read the headline, but not the details of the article, and develop their views based on their personal preconceived biases and prejudices as it accords with the titles.

The news papers could have titled the articles with thing like: "first update on sexual harassment in the military delivered by CDS" or "military reports on progress in changing sexual culture", etc.

Titles like that force the reader to read through to actually get the "facts" instead of imagining them from the title through personal inferences: You tell me if, knowing where we came from in past news story (from the Deschamps report), people will take "22% increase in sexual complaints in the military: report" as anything other than a confirmation in their minds that things are getting worse instead of being a title that causes people to want to read the details instead of just feeling "I know the facts without reading, cause the facts are all in the title".

That's all I am saying.


----------



## McG

Today's reporting may even be positive spin.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2016/08/31/military-chief-is-moving-fast-on-sexual-misconduct-editorial.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> Today's reporting may even be positive spin.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2016/08/31/military-chief-is-moving-fast-on-sexual-misconduct-editorial.html


I wonder if the _Star_'s just keeping their rocks tucked away while they go through a phase of being a glass house as the paper appears to be coming to grips with its _own_ sexual/labour/gender relations issues.


----------



## Jarnhamar

If we get medals for operations maybe we should get a medal for Operation Honour. Set it up like the CD.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If we get medals for operations maybe we should get a medal for Operation Honour.



aka Positive Reinforcement?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think (hope) he was joking...if he wasn't joking, I hope he sobered up and/or someone tasered him.   ;D


----------



## mariomike

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think (hope) he was joking...if he wasn't joking, I hope he sobered up and/or someone tasered him.   ;D



I hope so too! But, you never know.  

Speaking of Tazers aka the Medicine from ConEdison, maybe they will unlock that thread one day. Saw one from this Labour Day Weekend that I would love to share.


----------



## Jarnhamar

You're just jealous you didn't think of it


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You're just jealous you didn't think of it



You're right;  I need something to go beside my 150 gong.


----------



## kratz

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If we get medals for operations maybe we should get a medal for Operation Honour. Set it up like the CD.



There was 3 pages discussing an imaginary 150 medal.

What would a medal for Operation Honour look like?
Maybe a fuzzy bunny rabbit on the front.  [


----------



## mariomike

kratz said:
			
		

> What would a medal for Operation Honour look like?



Whatever it's design, it would look a bit awkward if you are the only guy / gal without one.  

"You got some 'splaining to do!"


----------



## jollyjacktar

More charges on CF members.



> Halifax military Master Seaman Daniel Cooper facing sex assault charges
> 
> Charges relate to an alleged sexual assault which took place in November 2015
> 
> By Cassie Williams, CBC News  Posted: Sep 13, 2016 11:51 AM AT| Last Updated: Sep 13, 2016 11:51 AM AT
> A member of the Canadian Armed Forces in Halifax has been charged with sexual assault — the second such charge in as many days for the military.
> 
> On Tuesday, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service laid two charges under the National Defence Act against Master Seaman Daniel Cooper of the Naval Fleet School at CFB Halifax.
> The charges relate to an alleged sexual assault which took place in November 2015. At that time, Cooper was deployed on an international mission aboard HMCS Athabaskan. The alleged victim is also a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Cooper faces one count of sexual assault and one count of abuse of subordinates. His trial will be by court martial before a military judge.
> 
> This is the second time this week a member of the Canadian military has been charged with sexual assault. On Monday, Sgt. Kevin MacIntyre, who is stationed at CFB Halifax, was charged in connection with an incident that took place in Glasgow in September 2015.
> 
> Last month, the military's top brass said progress had been made in the war on sexual misconduct in the ranks, after more people came forward to report sexual offences.
> 
> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is a unit within the independent Canadian Forces Military Police Group. It investigates serious and sensitive matters in relation to Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving in Canada and around the world.
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-military-member-sex-assault-charge-hmcs-athabaskan-1.3759798


----------



## mariomike

Sep 22, 2016 

Canadian Forces Sgt. found guilty of arranging to meet girl, 3, for sex
http://www.680news.com/2016/09/22/canadian-forces-sgt-found-guilty-of-arranging-to-meet-girl-3-for-sex/
A Canadian Armed Forces Sergeant posted at CFB Trenton in eastern Ontario has been found guilty of child pornography offences and arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child.


----------



## George Wallace

From Edmonton:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-army-captain-faces-long-list-of-criminal-charges-1.3771408


----------



## mkil

Out of Bagotville (no English version available)

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/09/23/militaire-arrete-et-remis-en-liberte


----------



## The Bread Guy

Part of the (alleged?) solution ...


> The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal Brigadier-General Robert Delaney today officially announced the establishment of a new 18-member team dedicated to supporting the investigation of criminal sexual offences throughout the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence.
> 
> The Sexual Offence Response Team, an Operation HONOUR initiative, increases the ability of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to protect and support victims of sexually based offences by identifying, investigating, and helping prosecute persons responsible for criminal sexual offences.
> 
> The announcement at Canadian Forces Base Trenton officially recognized the establishment of the specially trained team that is already in place and conducting operations in six locations across Canada ...


From the Backgrounder ...


> On September 27, 2016, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal officially announced the establishment of a new 18-member team dedicated to supporting the investigation of criminal sexual offences throughout the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence.
> 
> The Sexual Offence Response Team, an Operation HONOUR initiative, increases the ability of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to protect and support victims of sexually based offences by identifying, investigating and helping prosecute persons responsible for criminal sexual offences. The announcement officially recognized the establishment of the specially trained team already in place and conducting operations in six locations across Canada.
> 
> *Role of the Sexual Offence Response Team*
> 
> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is a unit within the independent Canadian Forces Military Police Group whose mandate is to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to Department of National Defence property, Department of National Defence employees and Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving in Canada and around the world.
> 
> The Sexual Offence Response Team is an investigative team within the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service that is focussed on illegal sexual activities affecting the Canadian Armed Forces community and ensuring support to victims.
> 
> The mission of the Sexual Offence Response Team is to contribute to the ethical principles, values and operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces by:
> 
> investigating criminal sexual activities throughout the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence and prosecuting persons engaged in harmful, inappropriate and criminal sexual behaviour;
> ensuring victim services are provided by coordinating investigative activity with key enablers and stakeholders such as the Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct and the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre; and
> supporting Canadian Armed Forces administrative processes related to sexual offences.
> 
> A majority of Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigations revolve around sexual related matters. The Sexual Offence Response Team provides investigators with a nucleus of expertise regarding:
> 
> historical investigative techniques;
> new trends in law enforcement concerning sexually based offences: and
> best practices for future sexual related investigations.
> 
> The intent of building this base of knowledge and experience is to help ensure procedural correctness, improve support to victims, and lead to better file management and fewer investigative delays.
> 
> *Composition and location*
> 
> The 18 investigators of the Sexual Offence Response Team are dispersed in three-member teams at the six Canadian Forces National Investigation Service’s regional offices across Canada. Each team consists of one sergeant and two master corporals. Investigative teams of three ensures a consistent footprint of two members working on investigative activities, while a third at times can be conducting training or conducting program development.
> 
> The geographic areas of responsibility of each team are as follows:
> 
> Pacific Region (based in Victoria, with responsibility for the Province of British Columbia);
> Western Region (based in Edmonton, with responsibility for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon);
> Borden Region (based at CFB Borden, with responsibility for the Western portion of Ontario);
> Central Region (based in Ottawa, with responsibility for the Eastern portion of Ontario);
> Eastern Region (based at CFB Valcartier, with responsibility for the province of Quebec and Nunavut); and
> Atlantic Region (based in Halifax, with responsibility for the four Atlantic provinces).
> 
> Note: While the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service regional offices are co-located with other military bases, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service personnel, including members of the Sexual Offence Response Team, work independently from the normal military chain of command. They receive direction and report directly to the commanding Officer of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.
> 
> *Selection and training*
> 
> Members of the Sexual Offence Response Team are carefully selected based on their training and experience in sexual related investigations. Each member must display an aptitude for this area of investigations as well as character traits including empathy, understanding, and victim-oriented focus.
> 
> In addition to standard training received by all investigators in the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, members of the Sexual Offence Response Team also receive specialized training in:
> 
> investigating sexual assault;
> physical abuse and child death;
> investigating offences against children;
> investigative and forensic interviewing techniques; and
> trauma informed care training.
> 
> The training is specifically aimed at ensuring investigators listen to every victim with a compassionate ear, to accurately gather facts, to avoid preconceived judgements and to respond to complaints and conduct every investigation in a thorough, professional and impartial manner.
> 
> The ongoing training of the team will be revised as required to ensure it reflects progressive law enforcement trends, opportunities and lessons learned.
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> The Sexual Offence Response Team adds to the strength of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and optimizes opportunities to successfully identify, investigate, and bring to prosecution those persons responsible for criminal sexual offences in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Any member who has experienced or witnessed harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour of any kind in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has a range of options available to him or her.For more information regarding available services, please visit the Harmful and Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour webpage.


Both docs also attached in case links don't work for you.


----------



## mariomike

Oct 4, 2016 

Military reviews training as figures show many sex offences involved cadets
http://www.680news.com/2016/10/04/military-reviews-training-as-figures-show-many-sex-offences-involved-cadets/
OTTAWA – The Canadian Forces says it is taking a close look to ensure there are no policy gaps when it comes to protecting its cadets, as figures show many alleged military sexual offences involved youth in uniform.


----------



## McG

mariomike said:
			
		

> While searching for the super-thread, I came across this thread from 2014. Will add for reference ( if no one minds ),
> 
> Soldier acquitted of sexually assaulting female subordinate/BOI to follow
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/116091.0


I'd leave it.  It is a fairly significant incident of its own and likely will generate future news stories and then discussion.  It does not need to be buried inside a general discussion.


----------



## dapaterson

Charges against a high-ranking military officer accused of sex crimes were withdrawn in an Edmonton courtroom Friday.

The Crown prosecutor asked a Court of Queen's Bench judge to withdraw all charges against Lt.-Col. Mason Stalker, who was ordered earlier this year to stand trial on three counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation following a one-day preliminary hearing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/sexual-assault-charges-withdrawn-against-edmonton-military-officer-1.3836876


----------



## Pusser

Tried or not, the damage to his career is probably substantial.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pusser said:
			
		

> Tried or not, the damage to his career is probably substantial.



Why? He was found not guilty. Are you saying that even though he was found not guilty, he's still going to be blackballed?

That's not the way the CAF does things.  :


----------



## Good2Golf

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why? He was found not guilty. Are you saying that even though he was found not guilty, he's still going to be blackballed?
> 
> That's not the way the CAF does things.  :



Pretty sure that charges dropped ≠ not guilty.


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> He was found not guilty.


"There was no longer a reasonable likelihood of securing a conviction" =/= verdict of "not guilty"



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Are you saying that even though he was found not guilty, *he's still going to be blackballed?*


Now THAT's an interesting, multi-layered question ...


----------



## brihard

It wasn't an acquittal; charges were withdrawn. That's the legal equivalent of them never being laid in the first place. An acquittal means that after a trial or an appeal, a judge or jury finds the person not guilty. The other possibility other than a finding of guilty is a 'stay of proceedings', which is when the crown decides that it doesn't have enough to go on and basically ceases the prosecution, but the charges remain laid. Crown can pick up the case and run with it again within a year in those instances.

But yeah, probably still safe to say his career has taken an irreversible hit. I doubt anyone will want to be the one who promotes him into a prominent or visible position from here on out.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brihard said:
			
		

> It wasn't an acquittal; charges were withdrawn. That's the legal equivalent of them never being laid in the first place. An acquittal means that after a trial or an appeal, a judge or jury finds the person not guilty. The other possibility other than a finding of guilty is a 'stay of proceedings', which is when the crown decides that it doesn't have enough to go on and basically ceases the prosecution, but the charges remain laid. Crown can pick up the case and run with it again within a year in those instances.
> 
> But yeah, probably still safe to say his career has taken an irreversible hit. I doubt anyone will want to be the one who promotes him into a prominent or visible position from here on out.



Now let's see the CF launch a defamation suit launched against the false accuser on behalf of LCol Stalker.... 

.... oh, wait, I forgot, 'this is 2016'.


----------



## brihard

Charges being withdrawn doesn't mean the accusation was false... Just that they don't have what they need to go with it. Realistically none of us will ever have the full picture.


----------



## shootemup604

I'm surprised this didn't come sooner after the preliminary hearing.  Its purpose is to determine whether or not the charges and trial are warranted.


----------



## Journeyman

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> I'm surprised this didn't come sooner after the preliminary hearing.  Its purpose is to determine whether or not the charges and trial are warranted.


Yes, but the CBC article stated that the "Crown said it concluded there was no longer a reasonable likelihood of securing a conviction," suggesting that _something_  had changed since the initial determination.  

What?  :dunno:   For the sake of the LCol's reputation, they should have stated it.


----------



## Hound Dog

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, but the CBC article stated that the "Crown said it concluded there was no longer a reasonable likelihood of securing a conviction," suggesting that _something_  had changed since the initial determination.
> 
> What?  :dunno:   For the sake of the LCol's reputation, they should have stated it.



In cases involving allegations of historical sexual misconduct, the primary evidence against the accused is the testimony of the complainant. If the Crown is no longer proceeding after the matter was committed at prelim, it's likely either the complainant indicated they no longer wished to proceed or something came up that has caused serious questions about the complainant's credibility.


----------



## brihard

Hound Dog said:
			
		

> In cases involving allegations of historical sexual misconduct, the primary evidence against the accused is the testimony of the complainant. If the Crown is no longer proceeding after the matter was committed at prelim, it's likely either the complainant indicated they no longer wished to proceed or something came up that has caused serious questions about the complainant's credibility.



Exactly my thoughts too.


----------



## McG

Pusser said:
			
		

> Tried or not, the damage to his career is probably substantial.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Why? He was found not guilty. Are you saying that even though he was found not guilty, he's still going to be blackballed?
> 
> That's not the way the CAF does things.  :


I don't think he will be blackballed.  But, he was ripped out of a CO job half way through the tenure. He is not going to get that back ... and not for spite, it is just that it is now somebody else's turn.  A year and a half of being accused will have cost him opportunity to keep pace with his peers.  Maybe he can close that gap again, but the system is not designed to help someone play catch-up.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Charges being withdrawn doesn't mean the accusation was false...


... but the idea of innocent until proven guilty applies, does it not?


----------



## brihard

MCG said:
			
		

> ... but the idea of innocent until proven guilty applies, does it not?



Absolutely. There will be a difference between legal result and stigma in this case, I suspect, and it will detrimentally impact his career.


----------



## blacktriangle

In cases like these, if allegations turn out to be complete BS, does law enforcement take automatic action against the accuser? Or are people basically able to throw around false accusations, ruin a person's life, waste taxpayer dollars, and face no consequences themselves?


----------



## brihard

Spectrum said:
			
		

> In cases like these, if allegations turn out to be complete BS, does law enforcement take automatic action against the accuser? Or are people basically able to throw around false accusations, ruin a person's life, waste taxpayer dollars, and face no consequences themselves?



Again, it's important to point out that a charge not leading to conviction does not mean claims are B.S.

The criminal offense of 'public mischief' covers deliberately false police reports:



			
				Criminal Code of Canada said:
			
		

> 140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by
> (a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
> (b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
> (c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
> (d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.



So there has to be an intent to mislead, there has to be concrete action (knowingly false statement or report, or fabricated evidence), and it must cause an investigation to begin or continue that otherwise would not have. And the same burden of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' applies. In practice I have rarely seen this charge laid and more rarely still succeed because proving a falsehood is very difficult. At the same time, the threshold for laying charges is quite high too (reasonable and probable grounds to believe), and in the vast majority of cases that I have seen where a charge has not resulted in a conviction, I can say in all honestly that I have almost invariably seen it as a gap of 'know' versus 'can prove', rather than a person actually being innocent in fact of the accusation. I'm not making comment on this or any other case in particular, but I woul dbet just about anyone working in the criminal justice field would probably agree it's an accurate generalization. Actually false charges are quite rare; what is more common is police/the crown ultimately failing to gather enough evidence and/or articulate it sufficiently to convince the trier of fact. So it would be very rare that something that is utterly, factually false enough to justify a public mischief charge would lead to charges being laid in the first place.

It does happen. But rarely.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard thanks to you and other others who take the time to explain the law and how this stuff works it's really interesting. 

It doesn't seem like false claims are followed up to often form what I can tell (PMQ  drama).  Someone would probably need a lawyer and thousands of dollars to throw at it.


----------



## captloadie

I'm not sure if I were the Comd CA I would just sweep this away and move on, especially as the charges were withdrawn. I would want to know the reasons why the prosecution decided not to go forward, and then make a determination (through the appropriate HR process) as to whether I had lost confidence in his ability to Lead, *and have his troops follow*.


----------



## Pusser

captloadie said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if I were the Comd CA I would just sweep this away and move on, especially as the charges were withdrawn. I would want to know the reasons why the prosecution decided not to go forward, and then make a determination (through the appropriate HR process) as to whether I had lost confidence in his ability to Lead, *and have his troops follow*.



I'm not sure whether a Commander's loss of confidence in a CO's ability to lead is relevant in cases like this.  As has already been pointed out, this officer was relieved and another was appointed to take his place,  Soon it will be time for yet another to step up.  History is full of examples of commanders who were relieved, but then later appointed to other commands once their names had been cleared.  Nowadays, however, a CO generally only gets one kick at the cat and even if something goes awry during his/her tenure (regardless of whether he/she is at fault), the steam roller keeps rolling and never looks back.


----------



## dapaterson

In fact, DMCA will be conducting an administrative review on this case, as they do in all cases where such charges have been laid, and may direct administrative action, depending on the circumstances.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Someone does not need to be found guilty in order for the court of public opinion to ruin their career and life.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In fact, DMCA will be conducting an administrative review on this case, as they do in all cases where such charges have been laid, and may direct administrative action, depending on the circumstances.



Indeed. I think people are failing to recognize that administrative action can still be taken up to and including booting him out. 

I would be curious to know how much info is being shared (or allowed to be shared) between the Crown and the member's Chain of Command. While something simple like the loss of a key witness could have caused the charges to be dropped, it doesn't mean that someone viewing this from his Chain of Command, _if they have all the info from the Crown_, can't decide that on the balance of probabilities (the burden of proof for administrative action) he did something he ought not to have done...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Brihard thanks to you and other others who take the time to explain the law and how this stuff works it's really interesting.


What he said, to all who provided input.


----------



## mariomike

ballz said:
			
		

> I think people are failing to recognize that administrative action can still be taken up to and including booting him out.



I know they let guys go if their judgment is called into question due to off-duty conduct where I used to work.
That includes Tweeting and social media. Or an off-duty FHRITP on-camera stunt etc...

No charges are necessary.


----------



## McG

mariomike said:
			
		

> I know they let guys go if ...


Who is "they"?


----------



## mariomike

MCG said:
			
		

> Who is "they"?





			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> where I used to work.



From what Ballz says, the military may have the same "administrative action"?


----------



## McG

So, "they" is Hydro One?

Unlike that organization, the CAF follows a system with procedural fairness.  The individual is given the opportunity to see the case against them, and to make replies.


----------



## mariomike

MCG said:
			
		

> So, "they" is Hydro One?



No.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Unlike that organization, the CAF follows a system with procedural fairness.  The individual is given the opportunity to see the case against them, and to make replies.



Ours go to arbitration. The individual is given the opportunity to see the case against them, and to make replies. The union represents them at the hearing.
The Arbitrator makes the final decision. 
Not the employer. Not the union.


----------



## ballz

mariomike said:
			
		

> From what Ballz says, the military may have the same "administrative action"?



Administrative action is just a blanket term for things like remedial measures, administrative reviews, etc. The important part in this is that its separate from legal/judicial/disciplinary action, and the burden of proof is on a "balance of probabilities" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt."

So as DAP said, an administrative review (AR) will be conducted to determine how to deal with the member going forward. If that AR determines that, on the balance of probabilities, the member committed these sex-related offences, then there is a wide array of possibilities available to deal with it. One of those possibilities in this case is most definitely a release. 

So, all that to say, this isn't even a matter of just being unofficially blackballed for the rest of his career... there are still official things that can take place..


----------



## OldSolduer

ballz said:
			
		

> Administrative action is just a blanket term for things like remedial measures, administrative reviews, etc. The important part in this is that its separate from legal/judicial/disciplinary action, and the burden of proof is on a "balance of probabilities" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
> 
> So as DAP said, an administrative review (AR) will be conducted to determine how to deal with the member going forward. If that AR determines that, on the balance of probabilities, the member committed these sex-related offences, then there is a wide array of possibilities available to deal with it. One of those possibilities in this case is most definitely a release.
> 
> So, all that to say, this isn't even a matter of just being unofficially blackballed for the rest of his career... there are still official things that can take place..



Correct. Well said.


----------



## mariomike

N.B. captain charged with sexual assault of fellow Armed Forces member
http://www.680news.com/2016/11/09/n-b-captain-charged-with-sexual-assault-of-fellow-armed-forces-member/


----------



## The Bread Guy

A reminder:  under the Charter, _"Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ..."_



> On November 9, 2016, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service charged a military member of 5th Canadian Division Support Group with two counts under the National Defence Act in relation to accessing child pornography.
> 
> The charges relate to reported accessing of child pornography while the accused was on duty at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown between June 26, 2014 and September 22, 2014.
> 
> Sergeant Brent Douglas Hansen faces the following charges:
> 
> one count of Accessing Child Pornography under section 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, punishable under section 130 of the National Defence Act; and
> one count of Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline, punishable under section 129 of the National Defence Act.
> 
> *Quotes*
> 
> “The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service thoroughly investigates any allegations of accessing, possession or distribution of child pornography in relation to Canadian Armed Forces members, Department of National Defence employees or defence establishments. These charges reflect our ongoing commitment to identify, investigate and bring to prosecution those persons engaged in harmful, inappropriate and criminal sexual behaviour.”
> Lieutenant-Colonel Francis Bolduc, Commanding Officer, Canadian Forces National Investigation Service
> 
> _*Quick Facts*_
> 
> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is a unit within the independent Canadian Forces Military Police Group whose mandate is to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to Department of National Defence property, Department of National defence employees and Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving in Canada and around the world.
> The Canadian Armed Forces takes all reports of misconduct by its members very seriously and, in all cases, action is taken to determine facts, conduct applicable investigations, analyse available evidence and, if warranted, lay the appropriate charges.
> 
> - 30 -​


Source


----------



## mba2011

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> [size=14pt]A reminder:  under the Charter, _"Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ..."
> _


_

Always good to remind people of this, particularly given what just happened with LCol Stalker.....

_


----------



## The Bread Guy

NeverDismount said:
			
		

> Always good to remind people of this ...


That, and "the allegations have not been proven in court" while the trial is underway.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of reach back by the NIS for information ...


> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is looking into an allegation of sexual assaults involving a child that reportedly took place at 3rd Canadian Division Support Base Edmonton between 1978 and 1980.
> 
> The investigation involves a non-family, non-military male youth who is reported to have sexually assaulted a child while babysitting in a residential housing unit at the base (then known as Canadian Forces Base Edmonton and formerly known as RCAF Station Namao).
> 
> If you have information about the reported assaults, contact Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS) or www.canadiancrimestoppers.org or call the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service’s Sexual Offence Response Team at 1-844-489-0569.


----------



## captloadie

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> [size=14pt]A reminder:  under the Charter, _"Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ..."_
> 
> I have always wondered, does this mean that the accused has the right to be presumed innocent _*by all*_ until proven guilty, or just by the independent and impartial tribunal hearing the case and meting out punishment. Is there a difference between being innocent from a legal stand point, and being innocent from a moral stand point?


----------



## McG

A CF member arrested at CFLRS for sexual assault:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/military-investigate-sexual-assault-saint-jean-garrison-1.3850400

Article seems to imply a connection to BMQ, but there are no details of incident, victim or accused.


----------



## FJAG

captloadie said:
			
		

> milnews.ca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [size=14pt]A reminder:  under the Charter, _"Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ..."_
> 
> I have always wondered, does this mean that the accused has the right to be presumed innocent _*by all*_ until proven guilty, or just by the independent and impartial tribunal hearing the case and meting out punishment. Is there a difference between being innocent from a legal stand point, and being innocent from a moral stand point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much a "moral" question as a "public/private opinion" one.
> 
> The totality of s 11(d) reads:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
> 
> 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
> 
> (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially this means that in cases where charges are laid that have criminal or penal consequences the government (prosecution) must prove the individual guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a fair and impartial tribunal. Laws cannot be created or circumstances allowed to exist whereby the individual is directly or indirectly presumed to be guilty and therefore required to prove his innocence. (There can, however, be low level non-criminal, non-penal strict or absolute liability offences where such presumptions do exist)
> 
> S11(d) is not a section that can dictate what public or private opinions are with respect to a given case. It only applies to the government (all levels). On the other hand, defamation laws might very well apply to members of the public that make statements that are not factual and that defame an accused before a conviction is entered.
> 
> Out of both an abundance of caution, and out of general fairness to the accused, we tend to withhold our opinions as to an individual's culpability until the trial process has taken its course.
> 
> [cheers]
Click to expand...


----------



## sailorprivateer

MCG said:
			
		

> A CF member arrested at CFLRS for sexual assault:
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/military-investigate-sexual-assault-saint-jean-garrison-1.3850400
> 
> Article seems to imply a connection to BMQ, but there are no details of incident, victim or accused.


A Redditor claims he knows the suspect but didn't specify more.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/5cz4fo/military_police_investigate_alleged_sexual/da16iqx/


----------



## Flavus101

sailorprivateer said:
			
		

> A Redditor claims he knows the suspect but didn't specify more.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/5cz4fo/military_police_investigate_alleged_sexual/da16iqx/



For very good reason. This is a prime example about how "social media" can get people in trouble.

That thread is a cesspool already, no surprise from reddit.


----------



## The Bread Guy

[size=14pt]A reminder:  under the Charter, _"Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ..."_

_*"Sexual assault charge laid against student at Royal Military College"*_


----------



## Halifax Tar

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/proposed-lawsuit-alleges-discrimination-bullying-in-canadian-armed-forces-1.3861109

The Canadian Armed Forces is rife with sexual misconduct and harassment of women, according to a proposed class-action lawsuit that claims systemic gender and sexual orientation-based discrimination.

More on link above.


----------



## OldSolduer

A bit of the story:

"The accounts of rampant, routine sexual discrimination, bullying and unwanted sexual advances against female members are astonishing," he said. "This frequent misconduct is part of a troubling and deeply embedded culture that female members have been forced to endure. It's time to step back, acknowledge how wrong it is, and take a stand against it."

And the CAF has. 

I'm very annoyed with some lawyers deciding that we're all guilty and labeling an entire profession, my profession. I really do wish someone would step up on behalf of past and current members of the CAF to tell this particular lawyer to "Stuff it". 

Offer up some proof....not just uncorroborated garbage.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> A bit of the story:
> 
> "The accounts of rampant, routine sexual discrimination, bullying and unwanted sexual advances against female members are astonishing," he said. "This frequent misconduct is part of a troubling and deeply embedded culture that female members have been forced to endure. It's time to step back, acknowledge how wrong it is, and take a stand against it."
> 
> And the CAF has.
> 
> I'm very annoyed with some lawyers deciding that we're all guilty and labeling an entire profession, my profession. I really do wish someone would step up on behalf of past and current members of the CAF to tell this particular lawyer to "Stuff it".
> 
> Offer up some proof....not just uncorroborated garbage.



There was a female Soldier that came forward in the media to say that in her decade or so years of service, she never experienced any of this so called "systematic" assaults and harassment. 

But clearly her opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## Halifax Tar

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> There was a female Soldier that came forward in the media to say that in her decade or so years of service, she never experienced any of this so called "systematic" assaults and harassment.
> 
> But clearly her opinion doesn't matter.



Link ?  I would like to read that.


----------



## mariomike

"Wagner said an eventual case would seek damages, but the amount wouldn't be determined until its known how many women decide to be part of the class."

Could be expensive,

Mounties offer apology and $100M compensation for harassment, sexual abuse against female members
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-paulson-compensation-harassment-1.3793785


----------



## PuckChaser

Do I get to file a counter suit for defamation of character because I'm constantly bring accused of being a rapist just because I'm male?


----------



## Jarnhamar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do I get to file a counter suit for defamation of character because I'm constantly bring accused of being a rapist just because I'm male?




I'll be identifying as a female and jumping on board with this lawsuit.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do I get to file a counter suit for defamation of character because I'm constantly bring accused of being a rapist just because I'm male?



You clearly have not read the manual:  ;D

"All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell


----------



## Lightguns

I am not sure what all the hurt is about.  if you have never raped anyone you should not worry.  In fact in a class action suit, all the rapists and abusers are actually not going to be effected or even have to worry, the organization will pay for the sins of the guilty.  The reality is that the court case will decide whether there is merit and at what level that merit should be applied to a remedy.  I have directed 3 women I know who have suffered during their time in the CAF.  If you know of someone, you should do the same and help (Hopefully) bring closure to this unfortunate event.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I am not sure what all the hurt is about.  if you have never raped anyone you should not worry.  In fact in a class action suit, all the rapists and abusers are actually not going to be effected or even have to worry, the organization will pay for the sins of the guilty.  The reality is that the court case will decide whether there is merit and at what level that merit should be applied to a remedy.  I have directed 3 women I know who have suffered during their time in the CAF.  If you know of someone, you should do the same and help (Hopefully) bring closure to this unfortunate event.



Except that when you call something "systematic" (i think they meant systemic, but whatever) you are painting every individual in it as either a perpetrator, enabler, or victim.  Men are already all seen as potential rapists and abusers, just by virtue of being in possession of a certain appendage and its two dependents, and this just perpetuates and reinforces that.


----------



## Brasidas

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Link ?  I would like to read that.



Ashley Turner. I keep getting dead links, but she might be able to get you a copy herself.

A stock photo of her with an M-72 got used alongside a reference to the big report last year, she took exception to her image being shoved together with it, and she wrote a letter to the folks who had done so. Metro appears to have nuked both the original article and her rebuttal.

Here's about the best I can find atm:

http://republicbuzz.com/cpl-ashley-turner-dont-associate-me-with-that-sexualized-culture-in-the-military-report
https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/36246s/cpl_ashley_turner_dont_associate_me_with_that/


----------



## PuckChaser

Report from the "voluntary" survey are to be released Monday, CDS expected the results to be "sobering" back in August.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/24/sobering-survey-on-sexual-harassment-in-military-coming-monday/


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=PuckChaser]
Report from the *"voluntary" survey*
[/quote]
Yup. Most people I know that completed the survey, myself included, felt harassed into doing so.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Report from the "voluntary" survey are to be released Monday, CDS expected the results to be "sobering" back in August.
> 
> http://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/24/sobering-survey-on-sexual-harassment-in-military-coming-monday/


Deep breaths, folks ...


> Canada's top soldier is vowing to punish or expel all abusive perpetrators from the military in the wake of a new survey by Statistics Canada that found 960 full-time members, or some 1.7 per cent of the regular force, reported sexual assault in the past year.
> 
> Responding to the StatsCan survey, Gen. Jonathan Vance said he is "extremely disappointed" that members have defied his explicit commands under Operation Honour.
> 
> "My orders were clear, my expectations were clear," said Vance, chief of the defence staff, calling the survey results "regrettably" sobering.
> 
> The statistics involved incidents that took place in the workplace or in situations involving military members, National Defence employees or contractors.
> 
> The survey also found that more than a quarter of all women in the military, or 27.3 per cent, reported sexual assault at least once over their military careers. That is "significantly higher" than the proportion of men, 3.8 per cent, who reported assault during their careers ...


This, from the CDS/CF Info-machine:


> The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, today addressed the results of the Statistics Canada survey on Sexual Misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).
> 
> The volunteer survey, the first of its kind in the CAF, asked members about their experiences and their perceptions of sexual misconduct within the CAF. Conducted from April to June 2016, it used an online questionnaire distributed to Regular Force and Primary Reserve members.
> 
> More than 43,000 responses were collected from Regular Force and Primary Reserve CAF members, representing 53% of the CAF population.
> 
> The Statistics Canada survey provides support to the findings presented in the 2015 Deschamps Report. However, the scope of this survey extends far beyond the Deschamps Report by virtue of the number of respondents and the range of topics covered.
> 
> The survey gives CAF leadership and members a more detailed picture of the scope, prevalence and nature of the problem of sexual misconduct. Increasing this understanding is a key component of Operation HONOUR, which is based on two key principles:
> 
> Every man and woman who serves their country deserves to be treated with dignity and respect – anything less is simply unacceptable; and
> 
> Any attitudes or behaviours which undermine the cohesion and confidence of serving members threatens the morale and operational readiness of the CAF.
> 
> The survey results show that sexual assaults (unwanted sexual touching, sexual attack, and sexual activity to which the victim is unable to consent) are occurring at a rate well above that of the general Canadian population, and that discriminatory behavior continues to negatively affect many of our members.
> 
> *Sexual assault*
> 
> In the twelve months preceding the survey, 1.7% (or 960) Regular Force members reported that they were victims of sexual assault in the military workplace or involving military members. Unwanted sexual touching was the most common form of sexual assault, reported by 1.5% (or 840) Regular Force members.
> 
> Women in the Regular Force were more likely than men to be sexually assaulted (4.8% versus 1.2%) in the twelve months preceding the survey.
> 
> *Sexualized and discriminatory behaviours*
> 
> 79% members of the Regular Forces saw, heard, or were personally targeted by sexualized behaviour in the military workplace or involving military members, Department of National Defence employees, or contractors.
> 
> Sexual jokes were the most common type of sexualized behavior in the workplace, witnessed or experienced by 76% of Regular Force members.
> 
> *Knowledge and perception of policies and responses to sexual misconduct*
> 
> The vast majority of Regular Force members were somewhat or very aware of Operation HONOUR (98%).
> 
> 81% of Regular Force members strongly agreed that complaints about inappropriate sexual behavior are (or would be) taken seriously in their current unit, while 78% agree that inappropriate behavior is not tolerated in their unit.
> 
> The results of this survey will serve as a benchmark against which Operation Honour can be measured. The CAF is analyzing the survey results and developing an action plan that will enhance continuing efforts to support and assist victims, increase awareness and understanding of the nature of harmful and inappropriate sexual behavior, and effect lasting culture change.
> 
> _*Quotes*_
> 
> “CAF members have responded in unprecedented numbers about their experience and perceptions of inappropriate sexual behavior, discrimination and sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces. This information is critical for all of us to understand the true scope and nature of the problem in our institution, and as well the challenges members continue to face and where we must realign our action plan in order to achieve the mission of Operation HONOUR and ensure a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.
> 
> “Harmful sexual behaviour is a real and present threat to our institution. Those who commit such acts are betraying the values of the country they are sworn to defend. The information in this survey will give us a better understanding of the scope and nature of the problem, allowing us to target our efforts under Operation HONOUR to eliminate this behaviour.”
> 
> General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff
> 
> “While it is sobering and disappointing to know that members continue to be victimized and feel threatened in our work environment, this survey provides us with the specific evidence we need to focus our efforts on culture change and  to eliminate the threat these behaviours represent to the Profession of Arms.”
> 
> Chief Warrant Officer Kevin West ...


... and this from Stats Can:


> About 960 Regular Force members of the Canadian Armed Forces, or 1.7%, reported being victims of sexual assault during the previous 12 months either in the military workplace or in situations involving military members, Department of National Defence employees or contractors. Sexual assault includes unwanted sexual touching, sexual attacks and sexual activity to which the victim is unable to consent (see note to readers for key concepts and definitions).
> 
> Female Regular Force members were four times more likely than males to report being sexually assaulted in the past 12 months (4.8% compared with 1.2%). In total, this represented approximately 380 women and 570 men.
> 
> Among those serving in the Primary Reserve, which predominantly consists of part-time members, 2.6% reported that they were victims of sexual assault in the past 12 months. Female Primary Reserve members (8.2%) were more likely than their male (1.4%) counterparts to report having been victims of sexual assault in the past 12 months.
> 
> When measuring sexual assault in the general population, incidents are not limited to those that occur in the workplace or involve co-workers. That said, the prevalence of sexual assault is lower among the general working population than in the Regular Force and the Primary Reserve. Among working Canadians, 0.9% reported being victims of sexual assault in any situation.
> 
> Results from the 2016 Survey on Sexual Misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, which surveyed male and female members of both the Regular Force and the Primary Reserve in Canada, are now available. Findings from this survey are included in the publication Sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, 2016, and Infographics presenting an overview of results are available for the Regular Force and the Primary Reserve. Results are generally consistent with previous research conducted in the military context in Canada and in other countries, which has found that women in the military are at greater risk than men of being victims of sexual assault.
> 
> Majority of incidents of sexual assault involve unwanted touching
> 
> The most common form of sexual assault was unwanted sexual touching, with 1.5% of Regular Force members stating that they were victims. Other forms of sexual assault, sexual attacks (0.3%) and sexual activity to which the victim was unable to consent (0.2%), were less common. A similar breakdown was also observed among members of the Primary Reserve.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual assault, women in the Regular Force were more likely than men to have been victims in the past 12 months. Specifically, women were four times more likely than men to experience unwanted sexual touching (4.0% versus 1.1%), five times more likely to be sexually attacked (0.9% versus 0.2%), and six times more likely to be subjected to sexual activity to which they were unable to consent (0.7% versus 0.1%).
> 
> Just over one in ten (12%) Regular Force members who were victims of sexual assault stated that they were victims of more than one type of sexual assault in the past 12 months, while 77% stated that the only form they experienced was unwanted sexual touching.
> 
> Reporting of sexual assault to authorities
> 
> Almost one in four (23%) victims of sexual assault in the past 12 months reported at least one incident of sexual assault to someone in authority, most often their military supervisor (20%). Less than 1 in 10 (7%) reported their victimization to the Military Police or the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.
> 
> In instances where sexual assault took more severe forms, victims were more likely to report to military police. While 5% of those who were victims of unwanted sexual touching reported an incident to police, just over one in five of those who were sexually attacked (22%) or subjected to sexual activity to which they could not consent because they were drugged, intoxicated or manipulated (21%) reported at least once incident to police.
> 
> Among those who did not report their sexual assault to the authorities, resolving it on their own was the most common reason given for not reporting (43% of women and 41% of men). Women who were sexually assaulted were more likely (35%) than men (14%) to state that they did not report the victimization to anyone because they were afraid of negative consequences or because they had concerns about the formal complaint process (18% versus 7%). Men were more likely than women (40% versus 23%) to consider the behaviour not serious enough to report.
> 
> Female victims more likely to identify supervisor or higher-ranking personnel as perpetrator
> 
> Women who were victims of sexual assault in the past 12 months were most likely to identify their supervisor or someone of a higher rank as the perpetrator of the assault (49%). In contrast, male victims most commonly identified a peer or peers as the person(s) responsible (56%) for the assault.
> 
> A smaller proportion of victims of sexual assault (6%) stated that the perpetrator was an intimate partner (dating partner, spouse or common-law partner) who was also a Canadian Armed Forces member or Department of National Defence employee or contractor, while 8% stated that the perpetrator was a stranger. These proportions were similar for men and women.
> 
> Sexual assault during military career
> 
> In addition to asking about their experiences of sexual assault in the past 12 months, members were asked about sexual assault over the course of their military career. Overall, more than one-quarter (27.3%) of women reported having been victims of sexual assault at least once since joining the Canadian Armed Forces, significantly higher than the proportion of men (3.8%). As was the case among those who were victims in the past 12 months, unwanted sexual touching was the most common type of sexual assault experienced.
> 
> Inappropriate sexualized and discriminatory behaviours
> 
> Beyond sexual assault, the study also explored a number of inappropriate sexualized and discriminatory behaviours, which can contribute to a broader sexualized culture within the workplace. Almost four in five (79%) members of the Regular Force saw, heard or personally experienced inappropriate sexualized behaviour during the past 12 months, which included inappropriate verbal or non-verbal communication, sexually explicit materials, unwanted contact or suggested sexual relationships (see note to readers).
> 
> Sexual jokes were the most common type of inappropriate sexualized behaviour, witnessed or experienced by 76% of Regular Force members. This was followed by inappropriate sexual comments (39%) and inappropriate discussion about sex life (34%).
> 
> One in three (34%) Regular Force members saw, heard or personally experienced behaviour that was discriminatory on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. Stereotyping based on sex (that is, suggestions that an individual does not act the way a person of their sex is supposed to act) was the most common type of discriminatory behaviour witnessed in the workplace in the past 12 months, with 22% of Regular Force members reporting this behaviour.
> About one in five Regular Force members personally targeted by inappropriate sexualized or discriminatory behaviours
> 
> About one in five (17%) Regular Force members reported being the targets of inappropriate sexualized or discriminatory behaviour either in the military workplace or involving other military members within the past 12 months. Women were twice as likely as men (31% versus 15%) to report being personally targeted by these types of behaviour.
> 
> Regardless of the specific type of inappropriate sexualized or discriminatory behaviours, women were more likely than men to have personally experienced them at least once in the past 12 months. Women were considerably more likely than men to experience unwanted sexual attention (15% versus 2%) or repeated pressure from the same person for dates or sexual relationships (6% versus 0.4%).
> 
> Regular Force members generally considered discriminatory behaviours to be more offensive than sexualized behaviours. About 6 in 10 of those who witnessed (or experienced) someone being insulted, mistreated, ignored or excluded because of their sex (63%), sexual orientation (62%) or gender identity (58%) believed that this behaviour was offensive.
> 
> The proportion who considered sexualized behaviours to be offensive ranged from 10% among those who witnessed or experienced sexual jokes, to 51% of those who witnessed or experienced the offering of workplace benefits in exchange for sexual relationships. Additionally, for each type of behaviour measured, a greater proportion of women than men considered them to be offensive.
> Perceptions of the response of the Canadian Armed Forces to sexual misconduct
> 
> Despite the occurence of inappropriate sexualized and discriminatory behaviour within the Canadian Armed Forces, most members had positive perceptions of the way sexual misconduct is or would be addressed in their unit. About 8 in 10 members strongly agreed that complaints about inappropriate sexual behavior are (or would be) taken seriously (81%) and that this behaviour is not tolerated (78%) in their current unit. Male Regular Force members (82%) were somewhat more likely than their female counterparts (74%) to strongly agree that complaints are or would be taken seriously and that inappropriate sexual behaviour is not tolerated in their unit (79% versus 72%).
> 
> While most Regular Force members reported believing that inappropriate sexual behaviour is not tolerated and is taken seriously in their current unit, 36% of men and 51% of women reported believing that inappropriate sexual behaviour is a problem within the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole. Those who were victims of sexual assault or who were targeted by inappropriate sexualized or discriminatory behaviour within the past 12 months were more likely to believe that inappropriate sexual behaviour is a problem in the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Members were also asked about Operation Honour, which was implemented in August 2015 and is a Canadian Armed Forces-wide program designed to end inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace and provide support to members who have been affected. Nearly all (98%) Regular Force members stated that they were aware of Operation Honour. Overall, one-third (32%) of Regular Force members believed that Operation Honour will be very or extremely effective, 37% believed that it will be moderately effective, and 30% believed that it will only be slightly effective or not effective at all.
> 
> (...)
> 
> From April to June 2016, active Regular Force and Primary Reserve members were invited to complete a voluntary survey conducted under the authority of the Statistics Act asking about their experiences and perceptions of inappropriate sexualized behaviour, discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and sexual assault within the CAF. This included witnessing or experiencing these types of behaviours within the military workplace, or outside the military workplace but involving other military members or Department of Defence employees or contractors.
> 
> _... Responses were received from over 43,000 active members of the CAF, including members of the Regular Force and Primary Reserve. Regular Force members had a higher response rate (61%) than those in the Primary Reserve (36%). As with all Statistics Canada surveys, respondents were informed that their individual responses would be protected under the Statistics Act.
> 
> As of February 2016, women accounted for 15% of the CAF ..._


----------



## FJAG

I'm always a bit reluctant to accept statistics without seeing the background information. Unfortunately this report does not link to raw or corrected/weighted data which makes it difficult.

Two points came to my attention.

The first is that around 90% of all respondents believe that systemically the CF and it's chain of command takes these matters seriously and is/are responding appropriately to complaints which is a good thing. I don't see that statistic being played up in the press at all.

Second is the fact that the report states 1.7% of the regular force and 2.6% of the reserve force report having experienced a sexual assault (which includes everything from extreme-end rape etc to the low end of unwanted sexual touching) while the statistic for the working civilian population appears to be 0.9% in any situation. I have a problem as to the source of the 0.9% figure as when I go to the 2014 StatsCan Criminal Victimization in Canada survey it shows that for the periods of 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 the percentage of individuals reporting being the subject of "violent victimization for sexual assault" (the definition of which-despite the addition of the word "violent"-is the same as for the CAF survey) runs in the area of 2.0 to 2.2%. See: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14241-eng.htm which would generally put the reg force below the national average and the reserves somewhat above the national rate.

For me that's a significant difference and deserves a better explanation. I think any time that we're told that we commit offences within the CF at twice the rate of the civilian working population we need to analyze very clearly as to why that is. The first step is to see if the statistics being cited are comparing apples to apples. If anyone knows where the 0.9% comes from I'd be interested.

 [cheers]


----------



## slayer/raptor

I'm curious if the numbers of sexual assault or harassment are higher amongst NCMs than Officers. I myself am an officer and all of my female friends (also officers) have reported they have never seen or heard about such things or if they happened to them.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Yes according to the survey: more than half of people who reported they were the victim of a sexual assault said the perpetrator was an NCM ranked MCpl/MS or lower, and one in three said the perpetrator was an NCM of Sgt/PO2 rank or higher.


----------



## George Wallace

I heard some of the comments in the House during Question Period, and this whole matter is turning into a statistical nightmare.  Statistics are being used to make a mountain out of a molehill.  Yes, sexual assault and sexual misconduct are contemptible acts and we must educate our troops and be very stringent in applying the correct disciplinary actions in the correct manner; but the way the Members of Parliament and the MSM are bending statistics is not benefiting the CAF.  

If you look at the actual percentage is as FJAG states above, well below the NATIONAL AVERAGE, it is in my opinion not a serious problem and should be reported as that; not as a means to disgrace the CAF.

I heard comments in Question Period of high numbers of members reporting witnessing Sexual Assault/Misconduct and the question entered my mind: "could those high numbers be a large group of people reporting witnessing the same singular event?"  I a Sgt Major (Old School) berated a member on parade in front of 400 people, 400 people could report that single event on such a survey.  What conclusions would someone not at that event draw from those statistics?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'd also be interested to see the numbers on (1) how many complaints were made that (2) went to the investigation, with charges laid and (3) lead to a guilty finding.

Anyone can make a complaint, or put whatever they want on a survey.  I guess I still hold onto that whole innocent until proven guilty stuff.


----------



## brihard

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd also be interested to see the numbers on (1) how many complaints were made that (2) went to the investigation, with charges laid and (3) lead to a guilty finding.
> 
> Anyone can make a complaint, or put whatever they want on a survey.  I guess I still hold onto that whole innocent until proven guilty stuff.



Innocent until proven guilty applies to the individual. In statistical terms, two equally valid measures of criminality used for research are self-reported victimization surveys, and uniform crime reporting of substantiated offences (note that substantiated does not mean the same as successfully convicted). There has long been a massive delta between self-reported victimization in sexual offences, and sexual offences reported to police. There are many barriers to reporting this type of crime, and the more 'professional' one's existence, the more pronounced some of them are.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brihard said:
			
		

> Innocent until proven guilty applies to the individual. In statistical terms, two equally valid measures of criminality used for research are self-reported victimization surveys, and uniform crime reporting of substantiated offences (note that substantiated does not mean the same as successfully convicted). There has long been a massive delta between self-reported victimization in sexual offences, and sexual offences reported to police. There are many barriers to reporting this type of crime, and the more 'professional' one's existence, the more pronounced some of them are.



And depending on how the organization deals with it, you can make a problem like this much worse in a variety of ways.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

FJAG said:
			
		

> Second is the fact that the report states 1.7% of the regular force and 2.6% of the reserve force report having experienced a sexual assault (which includes everything from extreme-end rape etc to the low end of unwanted sexual touching) while the statistic for the working civilian population appears to be 0.9% in any situation. I have a problem as to the source of the 0.9% figure as when I go to the 2014 StatsCan Criminal Victimization in Canada survey it shows that for the periods of 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 the percentage of individuals reporting being the subject of "violent victimization for sexual assault" (the definition of which-despite the addition of the word "violent"-is the same as for the CAF survey) runs in the area of 2.0 to 2.2%. See: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14241-eng.htm which would generally put the reg force below the national average and the reserves somewhat above the national rate.
> 
> For me that's a significant difference and deserves a better explanation. I think any time that we're told that we commit offences within the CF at twice the rate of the civilian working population we need to analyze very clearly as to why that is. The first step is to see if the statistics being cited are comparing apples to apples. If anyone knows where the 0.9% comes from I'd be interested.
> 
> [cheers]



I am not a stats guy, but the CAF/StatsCan report mentioned above refers to the 0.9% rate as being among "working Canadians." I am guessing that this was comparing CAF personnel with Canadians in similar situations (ie - part of the workforce), so an effort to do exactly what you are asking - compare apples to apples.

I am willing to accept the work of the StatsCan folks here and look for ways to solve the problem.


----------



## Gunner98

I think the harsh reality is: the CDS ordered everyone serving not to do something, he then used an anonymous survey to ask whether others witnessed people doing it and then he had to tell the public via the media that not everyone heeded the order.  The fact that the survey did not show complete adherence or zero instances is not surprising.  IMHO, the court of public opinion is no way to gauge the success of military leadership.


----------



## Journeyman

Maybe I'm missing something.....



			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I think the harsh reality is: the CDS ordered everyone serving not to do something, he then used an anonymous survey to ask whether others witnessed people doing it .....


I also did the mandatory "voluntary" survey, but I never saw a timeline on the questions -- nowhere did I see "have you observed x, y, or z _since_  Operation HONOUR was issued?

As noted by FJAG above, we likely are making progress...... 

It just doesn't get noted...apparently...


----------



## FJAG

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I am not a stats guy, but the CAF/StatsCan report mentioned above refers to the 0.9% rate as being among "working Canadians." I am guessing that this was comparing CAF personnel with Canadians in similar situations (ie - part of the workforce), so an effort to do exactly what you are asking - compare apples to apples.
> 
> I am willing to accept the work of the StatsCan folks here and look for ways to solve the problem.



Yeah. I can buy that. That's why I was asking if anyone knew where the stats came from.

I'm with you. It's getting better but there's still a lot to do.

 :cheers:


----------



## Gunner98

One of the things I am referring to is this, 

"The first progress report covering from July to December 2015 mapped out the Canadian Armed Forces’ headway in implementing both Operation HONOUR objectives and the External Review Authority’s recommendations over the first phase of the effort. It explained how early progress was being achieved, while underscoring that much more remained to be done."  Source:  http://forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-op-honour/2016/second-progress-report-introduction.page

Beyond sexual assault, the study also explored a number of inappropriate sexualized and discriminatory behaviours, which can contribute to a broader sexualized culture within the workplace. Almost four in five (79%) members of the Regular Force saw, heard or personally experienced inappropriate sexualized behaviour during the past 12 months, which included inappropriate verbal or non-verbal communication, sexually explicit materials, unwanted contact or suggested sexual relationships (see note to readers).  Source:  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/161128/dq161128a-eng.htm

To the general public it would appear that the CAF started changing its ways (and reporting on it) in July 2015; yet in the 12 months covered by the survey, 79% of CAF Reg Force members saw, heard or experienced inappropriate behaviours.


----------



## McG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...I never saw a timeline on the questions -- nowhere did I see "have you observed x, y, or z _since_  Operation HONOUR was issued?


I seem to recall that many of the questions were caveated with "in the last six months".  

Edit: just checked and the caveat was "in the last 12 months" which would have roughly aligned with the start of Op HONOUR but (depending on when pets took the survey) it could have included a few months prior to Op HONOUR order being published.


----------



## Lightguns

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> I'm curious if the numbers of sexual assault or harassment are higher amongst NCMs than Officers. I myself am an officer and all of my female friends (also officers) have reported they have never seen or heard about such things or if they happened to them.



 I know of four, 3 resulting in criminal convictions, one presently in the MP investigation stage.  All 3 convicted were Cpls, the last one a WO.  In fact this website just recently celebrated the one perp in the Fallen comrades thread, Clifford Longclaws who did about a year in jail for a sexual assault of a female member at a PPCLI smoker in Gagetown in 1989.


----------



## Lightguns

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I think the harsh reality is: the CDS ordered everyone serving not to do something, he then used an anonymous survey to ask whether others witnessed people doing it and then he had to tell the public via the media that not everyone heeded the order.  The fact that the survey did not show complete adherence or zero instances is not surprising.  IMHO, the court of public opinion is no way to gauge the success of military leadership.



Actually the harsher reality is the 30 sexual assault complaints and half dozen convictions that have crossed his desk since the start of Op Honour.  That seems to bother him for some strange reason.  If we were smart, and we are mostly not on this file, we would find all the member victims, serving or retired, from CONVICTED incidents and offer counseling and, if warranted, PTSD benefits and try to head this Sh%t show off at the pass.  But we are more likely to sit on our hands and say "wasn't me, I saw nothing".  

My retired friend who was in uniform, at a authorized function when she was sexually assaulted and despite the conviction of Cpl Longclaws in her assault, has tried and failed 3 times to get VA assistance for the PTSD she was diagnosed with by military doctors because of this event.  All the excuse making in the world will not change the fact that no safer for women in the military that it is for First Nations women.  Either we start look after all our members or we continue to argue stats and let the lawyers outside the military get rich ripping the CF a new one.....


----------



## The Bread Guy

This just out from the Info-machine as well ...


> (Monday), Master Warrant Officer Alan Chapman pleaded guilty to one charge at a standing court martial in Gatineau, Quebec, and was reduced to the rank of warrant officer.
> 
> The charges related to an act of sexual misconduct against a female member of the Canadian Armed Forces in Cypus in  2010.
> Quick Facts
> 
> Of the two charges which were preferred by the Director of Military Prosecutions on December 3, 2015:
> Commander Martin Pelletier, the military judge, stayed one charge of sexual assault under section 130 of the National Defence Act (section 271 Criminal Code of Canada).
> The military judge found WO Chapman guilty of one charge of having behaved in a disgraceful manner under section 93 of the NDA.
> Cdr Pelletier sentenced Warrant Officer Chapman to a reduction in rank to Warrant Officer from Master Warrant Officer and a $2500 fine.
> The CAF takes all allegations of any form of sexual misconduct seriously and is committed to dealing with them as quickly as possible.


----------



## brihard

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This just out from the Info-machine as well ...



His victim is one of the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed yesterday against the government on the grounds of sexual mistreatment in the CAF. I have not yet read the notice of action, but presumably it's going to be similar in nature to what the RCMP recently settled on.

I looked through some of the recent court martial decisions. A lot of dual charges of sex assault and disgraceful conduct getting pled down to disgraceful conduct. We can anticipate that eventually the media is going to start looking on that and see that relatively few convictions for sex offences are resulting from this new push. The optics will not play well.


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> Edit: just checked and the caveat was "in the last 12 months" ....


Ack


----------



## McG

Brihard said:
			
		

> I looked through some of the recent court martial decisions. A lot of dual charges of sex assault and disgraceful conduct getting pled down to disgraceful conduct. We can anticipate that eventually the media is going to start looking on that and see that relatively few convictions for sex offences are resulting from this new push. The optics will not play well.


Maybe, or maybe this is a sign that individuals who would escape punishment in the civilian world are still being held professionally accountable through the lesser charge available to the military.


----------



## mariomike

MCG said:
			
		

> Maybe, or maybe this is a sign that individuals who would escape punishment in the civilian world are still being held professionally accountable through the lesser charge available to the military.



Maybe, maybe not.

Professional conduct outside of profession
http://www.hrreporter.com/sharedwidgets/systools/_printpost_.aspx?articleid=853
How far should high standards of professional conduct apply when employees are off duty?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Brihard said:
			
		

> His victim is one of the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed yesterday against the government on the grounds of sexual mistreatment in the CAF. I have not yet read the notice of action, but presumably it's going to be similar in nature to what the RCMP recently settled on.
> 
> I looked through some of the recent court martial decisions. A lot of dual charges of sex assault and disgraceful conduct getting pled down to disgraceful conduct. We can anticipate that eventually the media is going to start looking on that and see that relatively few convictions for sex offences are resulting from this new push. The optics will not play well.



Fair enough, but you also cannot have the CoC be seen to be tampering with the administration of the military justice system (and the independence of the military judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers) by directing no more plea bargains on sexual assault charges. I would argue that COA would lead to a far worse outcome then plea bargaining. Plus (and you would know this best of all), it is always a crap shoot on sexual assault charges, especially in "he said/she said (or he said/he said or she said/she said)" situations where the evidence is not all that strong, you risk getting no conviction at all or really putting the victim through the ringer on the witness stand.

This is not easy stuff.


----------



## FSTO

I have no argument with the "we have to clean up our act right now" directive from the CDS. But the high dudgeon coming from the press and the talking heads is getting to be a little much. In light of the Ghomeshi issue within the CBC, I would like to see that institution take the survey and publish the results.


----------



## PuckChaser

I just don't see how a lawsuit is going to help the situation at all. I see it more as a money grab, rather than allowing Op HONOUR and other initiatives to root out those who feel like they can force themselves on others. 

Obviously we don't have the facts on that specific case, but reduction in rank and a large fine for a MWO (considering the time was likely a WO) seems pretty light. We should have higher standards for our leadership, and this guy should have been shown the door.


----------



## Lightguns

It isn't going to help anything in the organization nor is meant to assist the organization, that ship has sunk.  It is an expression of people who have been frustrated by the system and have moved outside it.  It is also a symptom of the organization losing control of the file.  The worst thing for the organization is that the class action is likely to bring dozens of unresolved cases or cases that were handled improperly to light.  There is likely to be a some perp hunting and a maybe a reopening of old cases in those cases where intent and result are very opposed.  Maybe something on the order of the Somalia Affair for a bit as new dirty laundry is aired and washed on a weekly basis by the press.  

Lots of folks likely about to spin but they don't know it yet.  The retired RCMP guy out my way said a some of his buddies were expelling bricks all through the RCMP class action.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I just don't see how a lawsuit is going to help the situation at all. I see it more as a money grab, rather than allowing Op HONOUR and other initiatives to root out those who feel like they can force themselves on others.


Op HONOUR deals with those in the system - but what about those in the old system that led to things (seemingly, anyway) being ignored?


			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> The worst thing for the organization is that the class action is likely to bring dozens of unresolved cases or cases that were handled improperly to light.


Agreed - but this is what happens when people don't do the right thing all the time, sadly.  Suuuuuuuuuuuuuux for those going through it now -- even those who do it right but get painted as if they don't -- though.


----------



## Loachman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I see it more as a money grab



While many of us are suspicious of such lawsuits, not necessarily without justification, one should not leap to conclusions.

Victims may have incurred some very real costs as a result of their abuse, and those costs may not be limited to financial ones.

I have been an Assisting Officer in a disgusting non-sexual harassment case in the past. I do not doubt that similar, or worse, stuff still happens. Those who suffer deserve care and support.


----------



## TCM621

What the hell is "unwanted sexual touching"?  I think most of us would define it along the lines of a butt grab but what is the definition used in the survey? Could a hug count? What about a hand on the shoulder?  Absent a clear definition on what the majority of the self reported cases are, I don't think those numbers have meaning. 

As for sexual jokes,  I am sorry but while some are clearly inappropriate,  the types of jokes I hear are indicative of a tight knit group of people who are comfortable around each other. People just need to raise their get offended bar a bit. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Remius

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> What the hell is "unwanted sexual touching"?  I think most of us would define it along the lines of a butt grab but what is the definition used in the survey? Could a hug count? What about a hand on the shoulder?



If you are asking those questions now after all the forced training rammed down our throats to knock it into us so that we know the difference then clearly the CAF still has a long way to go.  either that or YOU aren't getting it.


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:
			
		

> If you are asking those questions now after all the forced training rammed down our throats to knock it into us so that we know the difference then clearly the CAF still has a long way to go.  either that or YOU aren't getting it.



Knock off the righteous indignation. THAT was uncalled for. There has to be CLEAR definitions, not someone's whim.


----------



## Remius

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Knock off the righteous indignation. THAT was uncalled for. There has to be CLEAR definitions, not someone's whim.



Sorry Hamish, but if someone doesn't know what unwanted sexual touching is by now then they haven't been listening. It has nothing to do with righteous indignation.


----------



## Stoker

So in regards to the class action, does this mean everyone and his dog will be coming out the woodwork and saying they were touched or assaulted. I see people giving their deposition, naming names and obviously the crown will see this info. This has the potential to end peoples career even though said person didn't do anything or if they did not having their day in court. I admit i'm not up on class actions but I assume detailed descriptions of what happened to you need to be given in order to prove that you were affected and should get money?


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:
			
		

> Sorry Hamish, but if someone doesn't know what unwanted sexual touching is by now then they haven't been listening. It has nothing to do with righteous indignation.



Can you tell me what unwanted sexual touching is? 

Can anyone? The recipient is the one who decides what it is, in my mind. 

So should we adopt a "no touch policy" ? Is that what it's coming to?


----------



## Remius

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Can you tell me what unwanted sexual touching is?



*Unwanted sexual touching: Has anyone touched you against your will in any sexual way? This includes unwanted touching or grabbing, kissing or fondling? *

That was the exact question asked in the survey.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ZERO idea what was taught, but googling "unwanted sexual touching gc.ca" came up with this reasonably standardized definition ...

_*“During the past 12 months, has anyone ever touched you against your will in any sexual way? By this I mean anything from unwanted touching or grabbing, to kissing or fondling.”*_ (Justice Canada)
_*"unwanted sexual touching, including touching, grabbing, kissing or fondling"*_ (Status of Women Canada)
_*"During the past 12 months, has anyone ever touched you against your will in any sexual way? By this I mean anything from unwanted touching or grabbing, to kissing or fondling."*_ (Stats Can)
YMMV


----------



## smale436

Speaking as a man, I recently had a female (married not that it matters) supervisor who I worked with for years, mostly as the same rank.  The nicest person I've ever met in my life. Sometimes when I'd be sitting at my desk with her standing next to me discussing stuff she would put her hand on my shoulder and give it a quick squeeze, mostly when I came across slightly stressed out but sometimes not. I appreciated it as things like that can make your day when you're facing struggles whether at work or home. Did I ever once think it was inappropriate and would I ever make a complaint? Absolutely not. 

As a man who believes fully in the principle behind Op Honour, and who now thinks three times before speaking, I would not even dare consider making a similar friendly shoulder touch to a woman, no matter how well I know them. It makes you wonder how many people will be facing administrative or disciplinary action due to similarly well-meaning gestures or even private conversations overheard by people that deemed them "offensive". I know it scares me to think that I could hang for saying something months ago that I cannot remember, because nobody said at that time, "hey that's not acceptable to say." People are human and two people's values and philosophies on what is and is not inappropriate conversation may not be similar. Socializing with co-workers outside of work/going to the mess was already on the decline as it was, it will just decline further as people don't want to put themselves in a position where an offhand comment turns into an RW or worse. Personally I won't be attending the unit xmas party nor staying at mess dinners past the final port toast anymore. Not because I don't trust myself, but because I don't trust others.


----------



## TCM621

Remius said:
			
		

> *Unwanted sexual touching: Has anyone touched you against your will in any sexual way? This includes unwanted touching or grabbing, kissing or fondling? *
> 
> That was the exact question asked in the survey.


That's just circular. Unwanted touching is touching that is unwanted. What is touching in a sexual way? Unwanted touching. 

There is no clear line drawn and for all we know the self reported un wanted touching is a pat on the shoulder. Conversely,  it could be straight up boob grabs. The term is not defined and as such meaningless. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That's just circular. Unwanted touching is touching that is unwanted. What is touching in a sexual way? Unwanted touching.
> 
> There is no clear line drawn and for all we know the self reported un wanted touching is a pat on the shoulder. Conversely,  it
> 
> could be straight up boob grabs. The term is not defined and as such meaningless.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



Just use the rules of the "man hug" as a loose guideline  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Loachman said:
			
		

> While many of us are suspicious of such lawsuits, not necessarily without justification, one should not leap to conclusions.
> 
> Victims may have incurred some very real costs as a result of their abuse, and those costs may not be limited to financial ones.
> 
> I have been an Assisting Officer in a disgusting non-sexual harassment case in the past. I do not doubt that similar, or worse, stuff still happens. Those who suffer deserve care and support.



Absolutely not painting them all with the "money grab" brush, but I know if I had to endure something horrible like the stories of the 3 key plantiffs, money would be the furthest thing from my mind. Money in a lawsuit isn't going to fix the problems that allowed them to be taken advantage of. Their stories and advocacy to help shine light on a dark situation is where I see the most good coming out from it.


----------



## the 48th regulator

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely not painting them all with the "money grab" brush, but I know if I had to endure something horrible like the stories of the 3 key plantiffs, money would be the furthest thing from my mind. Money in a lawsuit isn't going to fix the problems that allowed them to be taken advantage of. Their stories and advocacy to help shine light on a dark situation is where I see the most good coming out from it.



Spoken like a person who never has experienced harm in that manor.

Stay in your lanes please.  You disgrce my sisters and brothers that sufferd such abuse.

dileas

tess


----------



## Remius

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> There is no clear line drawn and for all we know the self reported un wanted touching is a pat on the shoulder. Conversely,  it could be straight up boob grabs. The term is not defined and as such meaningless.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



Why don't we give the people reporting this a bit more credit.  Most men and women know the difference between a pat on the shoulder and unwanted sexual touching.  There maybe a few cases of confusion or misunderstanding but not in the numbers being reported. Brushing this off is exactly the wrong approach and exactly why we are in the situation we are in.


----------



## mariomike

Of all the posts in these 24-pages, I wonder how many were made by women? 

I know gender shouldn't make a difference on the job, but perhaps in a discussion such as this more "womansplaining" would help? 

My sister made her career in the Regular Force, but I have never spoken to her about anything like this.



			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> The retired RCMP guy out my way said a some of his buddies were expelling bricks all through the RCMP class action.



Do RCMP work in two-officer cars with permanent partners? 

Reason I ask is I remember being cooped up in a radio unit with the same partner 12-hours a day, 40-hours a week, year after year. 

Nothing to do except wait for the next 9-1-1 call. 

It's the little things that wear down your nerves. Constant foot-tapping, constantly opening and closing the glove compartment etc...  

Over time, partners, sometimes mixed gender, may develop powerful bonding dynamics. Sometimes that's a positive, sometimes negative. 

I read once that partnerships should be broken up after 16 months. But, I never saw it happen.

Not to suggest that could have prevented the $100 million RCMP lawsuit.


----------



## beachdown

It might NOT have happened to you or your friends, but that doesn't mean there aren't cases. Today in Kingston, a Captain was reduced to the rank of Lt. He was being charged with sexual assault and disgraceful behaviour, but a deal was reached



			
				slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> I'm curious if the numbers of sexual assault or harassment are higher amongst NCMs than Officers. I myself am an officer and all of my female friends (also officers) have reported they have never seen or heard about such things or if they happened to them.


----------



## beachdown

Where have you be living? If you have kids that are in school, you will know it's drilled into them on a daily basis to "keep their hands to themselves". So, if kids can get it, I don't see why adults can't really



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Can you tell me what unwanted sexual touching is?
> 
> Can anyone? The recipient is the one who decides what it is, in my mind.
> 
> *So should we adopt a "no touch policy" ? Is that what it's coming to?*


----------



## Jarnhamar

beachdown said:
			
		

> It might NOT have happened to you or your friends, but that doesn't mean there aren't cases. Today in Kingston, a Captain was reduced to the rank of Lt. He was being charged with sexual assault and disgraceful behaviour, but a deal was reached



Maybe we should stop making deals with sexual predators.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe we should stop making deals with sexual predators.



I second that motion. 

How could we even think of trying to keep a Commissioned Officer on the payroll after being found guilty of something like that? 

Any trust his troops may have had in him has evaporated and, as a result, he is essentially unemployable in any military unit AFAIC.


----------



## beachdown

Whisper among the NCM corps is that he got away lightly because he is an officer / ring knocker...can't say I buy into this personally



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe we should stop making deals with sexual predators.


----------



## TCM621

Remius said:
			
		

> Why don't we give the people reporting this a bit more credit.  Most men and women know the difference between a pat on the shoulder and unwanted sexual touching.  There maybe a few cases of confusion or misunderstanding but not in the numbers being reported. Brushing this off is exactly the wrong approach and exactly why we are in the situation we are in.


I'm not brushing it off and I am sure it isn't a pat on the shoulder in the vast majority of cases but in absence of a definition we can't say.  Part of the problem with the whole culture built up around these issues is the ever changing playing field. 

I grew up with a certain way that women were supposed to treated a certain way. Then I found out that it was sexist to treat women any different from men. Then when we start treating them like men,  I find out that it is inappropriate to talk and act that way around women. 

I would like to see some clear definitions of what does and does not equal inappropriate behaviour. I can go grab a woman's breast or a dudes crotch.  I can probably pat them on the back (although  only if the girl doesn't think I'm ugly or weird). I used those examples because they are so wide apart. There is far too much ambiguity and the onus on knowing what is appropriate is on the actor but the decision lays with the receiver. I don't want a woman to feel uncomfortable at work and I hope I never make any of my female subordinates or peers feel that way. But (and this will be very controversial so accept that I say this as someone who has helped loved ones deal with sexual assualt) maybe the receiver is over sensitive because of something that happened to them in the past or because they have a set viewpoint they view the world through. 

The way forward isn't to vilify CF members or coddle them. Deal with the obvious examples harshly but for the more nuanced issues they should be dealt with on the lowest level with a goal of having everyone leave with an understanding of what is acceptable (good or bad) and the opportunity to move forward. I am afraid op honour isn't creating that climate but rather one in which the leadership gets to show how tough they are on a very politicized issue.


----------



## LePadre

Loachman said:
			
		

> Victims may have incurred some very real costs as a result of their abuse, and those costs may not be limited to financial ones.



THIS^^^

I registered just to support this comment.

There are real costs to sexual misconduct and assault. Not all these costs are financial. Some of these costs are in lost time, productivity, morale, unit cohesion, mental and emotional wellbeing, use of limited resources, etc... Some of these costs last a lifetime. Often these costs are shared by others such as a spouse, partner, family members, friends, colleagues, etc...


----------



## beachdown

Sigh.....how old are you, 12 or something and do you have a mum and sisters? If the answer to the latter is yes, then think of how you will react if a guy off the street touches your mum or sister.

Additionally, it's easy keeping yourself in check....just know your audience, keep your hands to yourself and don't make any misogynistic comments, then you will be good to go. The latter part of your post talks about sensitivity...are you the type that will make a racial joke and then accuse the receiver of being "sensitive" or "playing the racial card"?



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I'm not brushing it off and I am sure it isn't a pat on the shoulder in the vast majority of cases but in absence of a definition we can't say.  Part of the problem with the whole culture built up around these issues is the ever changing playing field.
> 
> I grew up with a certain way that women were supposed to treated a certain way. Then I found out that it was sexist to treat women any different from men. Then when we start treating them like men,  I find out that it is inappropriate to talk and act that way around women.
> 
> *I would like to see some clear definitions of what does and does not equal inappropriate behaviour. I can go grab a woman's breast or a dudes crotch.  I can probably pat them on the back (although  only if the girl doesn't think I'm ugly or weird).* I used those examples because they are so wide apart. There is far too much ambiguity and the onus on knowing what is appropriate is on the actor but the decision lays with the receiver. I don't want a woman to feel uncomfortable at work and I hope I never make any of my female subordinates or peers feel that way. *But (and this will be very controversial so accept that I say this as someone who has helped loved ones deal with sexual assualt) maybe the receiver is over sensitive because of something that happened to them in the past or because they have a set viewpoint they view the world through. *
> 
> The way forward isn't to vilify CF members or coddle them. Deal with the obvious examples harshly but for the more nuanced issues they should be dealt with on the lowest level with a goal of having everyone leave with an understanding of what is acceptable (good or bad) and the opportunity to move forward. *I am afraid op honour isn't creating that climate but rather one in which the leadership gets to show how tough they are on a very politicized issue.*


----------



## Gunner98

Are serving members saying that between Aug 2015 and the date of the survey they had no better understanding of what inappropriate sexual behaviour is?

The CDS Op Honour Op Order under para 13 stated:

Lines of Effort.  Any harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour is a real and serious problem within the CAF.  A single act of wrong-doing, regardless whether it is conducted inadvertently or without malice, is one too many.  Even unintentional harm or offense undermines good order and discipline, threatens morale, and reduces operational effectiveness.  We will use a strategy involving four lines of effort:

"*a. Understand.  The CAF shall establish a clear understanding of what constitutes harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, the means to identify members who are in need of support, and improved reporting and assessment measures;*

b. Respond.  The CAF shall institutionalize a cultural change, framed by clear direction and training for leaders on how to better direct and effect culture change throughout the institution;

c. Support.  The CAF shall provide support and better facilitate services to CAF members affected by harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour including the establishment of a Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (SMRC).  To the extent possible, support to those affected by harmful and inappropriate sexual behavior shall be guided by “do no harm”; and

*d. Prevent.  The CAF shall develop a unified policy approach to specifically define what constitutes harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour in plain language, enhance education and training on harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, and establish an objective and enduring capability to measure performance and effect.*

I am understanding that despite all of the ongoing training there is no 'unified policy', 'clear definition' or 'clear understanding"?

I prefer to think in terms of - avoid all unnecessary physical contact.


----------



## Journeyman

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Absolutely not painting them all with the "money grab" brush, but I know if I had to endure something horrible like the stories of the 3 key plantiffs, money would be the furthest thing from my mind. Money in a lawsuit isn't going to fix the problems that allowed them to be taken advantage of. Their stories and advocacy to help shine light on a dark situation is where I see the most good coming out from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a person who never has experienced harm in that manor.
> 
> Stay in your lanes please.  You disgrce my sisters and brothers that sufferd such abuse.
Click to expand...

I read that as actually supporting the abuse plaintiffs.....   :stars:


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=beachdown]
Sigh.....how old are you, 12 or something[/quote]
You should check your ageism privilege at the door.



> then think of how you will react if a guy off the street touches your mum or sister.


Why does it have to be a guy touching a girl? Why not a guy touching his brother? You know that happens too right. Are you trying to minimize male victims on purpose?


----------



## George Wallace

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why does it have to be a guy touching a girl? Why not a guy touching his brother? You know that happens too right. Are you trying to minimize male victims on purpose?



Why stop there?  Why not a woman touching a man.....or another woman?  That does happen in the CAF. 

Is this topic not specific to one thing : "Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct"?  It is not solely aimed at "MEN" being the perpetrators of these actions.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I read that as actually supporting the abuse plaintiffs.....   :stars:



Of course you would....... :rofl:

Please.


----------



## Lightguns

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why stop there?  Why not a woman touching a man.....or another woman?  That does happen in the CAF.
> 
> Is this topic not specific to one thing : "Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct"?  It is not solely aimed at "MEN" being the perpetrators of these actions.



If the touch is unwanted or not necessary for a job related purpose, then those examples quality.  It is not gender specific thing.


----------



## TCM621

beachdown said:
			
		

> Sigh.....how old are you, 12 or something and do you have a mum and sisters? If the answer to the latter is yes, then think of how you will react if a guy off the street touches your mum or sister.
> 
> Additionally, it's easy keeping yourself in check....just know your audience, keep your hands to yourself and don't make any misogynistic comments, then you will be good to go. The latter part of your post talks about sensitivity...are you the type that will make a racial joke and then accuse the receiver of being "sensitive" or "playing the racial card"?



Yes,  I'm a 12 year old with more than 20 years in the CAF. 

So if I read your post right,  you believe we should just have a blatant no touch rule? If would make so things simpler. However,  touch is a huge part of social communication and is common across all cultures. It is one way humans interact. We shouldn't have to provide guidance on what is considered appropriate but apparently some people don't get it.  

I am fully aware of what victims of sexual abuse have to deal with. More so than a lot of people and I will always stand up to assist someone who is being assaulted, sexually or otherwise. But this survey and op honour are not,  IMO,  about helping victims of true sexual abuse. The survey was going to come back bad, we all knew it. I didn't feel I was able to properly express my views because the questions were illiterate to open to interpretation or skewed to a desired response. 


Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## beachdown

"More than 20yrs in" doesn't always mean a person is wiser or knows what NOT to say or do. Again, we teach our kids to keeps their hands to themselves at school, and am sure if your kid/s came home and said someone touched them, you will be all over it like a rash.

If you know a touch has the potential to be misconstrued, why would you want to continue doing it with everything in the news and papers? It's not so much the touching for me, but the constant vile/crass language in the CAF that rubs me the wrong way at times. It seems some people can't even comprehend when their comment or use of words borders on misogyny / verbal harassment / racial 



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Yes,  I'm a 12 year old with more than 20 years in the CAF.
> 
> So if I read your post right,  you believe we should just have a blatant no touch rule? If would make so things simpler. However,  touch is a huge part of social communication and is common across all cultures. It is one way humans interact. We shouldn't have to provide guidance on what is considered appropriate but apparently some people don't get it.
> 
> I am fully aware of what victims of sexual abuse have to deal with. More so than a lot of people and I will always stand up to assist someone who is being assaulted, sexually or otherwise. But this survey and op honour are not,  IMO,  about helping victims of true sexual abuse. The survey was going to come back bad, we all knew it. I didn't feel I was able to properly express my views because the questions were illiterate to open to interpretation or skewed to a desired response.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## captloadie

beachdown said:
			
		

> "More than 20yrs in" doesn't always mean a person is wiser or knows what NOT to say or do. Again, we teach our kids to keeps their hands to themselves at school, and am sure if your kid/s came home and said someone touched them, you will be all over it like a rash.


Actually, I recently read an article that stated this hands off policy at schools causes more issues in later years. If you teach young kids that all touching is bad, how do they learn how to show appropriate affection, and know the difference between good touching and bad touching.


----------



## mariomike




----------



## Half Full

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> But this survey and op honour are not,  IMO,  about helping victims of true sexual abuse. The survey was going to come back bad, we all knew it. I didn't feel I was able to properly express my views because the questions were illiterate to open to interpretation or skewed to a desired response.



Did you think the survey was going to directly help victims?  The survey was commissioned by DND to create an accurate baseline of how severe and widespread the problem was.  We knew it was bad, but we needed a better understanding of the issues so that Operation Honour can evolve and provide specific targeting on those areas where it is most required.  Now in two years when the survey is once again conducted we will be able to see if Operation Honour has had an effect on our culture and specifically on those who are still in denial that this is actually a problem.  DND did not make up the questions, the professionals at Stats Can did after understanding what we were looking for.  We didn't even get to see the results until they were officially released by Stats Can.


----------



## beachdown

Then we have morons like this Judge  :



> Federal Court Justice Robin Camp — who asked a woman during a rape trial why she couldn't just keep her knees together — should be removed from the bench, according to a unanimous recommendation from the Canadian Judicial Council's committee of inquiry.
> 
> Camp was a provincial court judge at the time of the rape trial in Alberta in 2014, in which he acquitted the accused, and was later promoted to the Federal Court. His comments during the trial and subsequent complaints made with the Canadian Judicial Council led to the inquiry.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/robin-camp-federal-court-judge-inquiry-committee-report-1.3874314


----------



## George Wallace

Half Full said:
			
		

> Did you think the survey was going to directly help victims?  The survey was commissioned by DND to create an accurate baseline of how severe and widespread the problem was.  We knew it was bad, but we needed a better understanding of the issues so that Operation Honour can evolve and provide specific targeting on those areas where it is most required.  Now in two years when the survey is once again conducted we will be able to see if Operation Honour has had an effect on our culture and specifically on those who are still in denial that this is actually a problem.  DND did not make up the questions, the professionals at Stats Can did after understanding what we were looking for.  We didn't even get to see the results until they were officially released by Stats Can.



I think that you may have missed the point.  If the questions were not properly asked and were open to numerous interpretations, nor permitting persons to clarify a position, then the survey is actually worthless as it did not in any way accurately portray the actual situation in relation to this matter.  Having a similar, poorly defined set of questions three years down the road, is NOT going to mean anything, nor prove anything.  Throw in Statistics and you have an even wider field of results.  If we play Devil's Advocate and have someone with a well defined bias and/or an agenda draw up these questions, then you have a very faulty statistical return and inaccurate portrait of the CAF.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If the questions were not properly asked and were open to numerous interpretations ...


And if the questions were properly asked and were not open to numerous interpretations?

Arguing from the hypothetical is not always the best way to make a case.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I found the latest bystander training way more appropriate and relevant than the Op Honour briefs.


----------



## armyvern

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I found the latest bystander training way more appropriate and relevant than the Op Honour briefs.



All reports back to me from our pers who underwent this trg are nothing but good.  A good sign is that we also had lots of volunteers to take the training.


----------



## MJP

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> All reports back to me from our pers who underwent this trg are nothing but good.  A good sign is that we also had lots of volunteers to take the training.



We have no volunteers....the direction in our world is all will take the trg and quite frankly it is worth it.  This trg is what should have been presented at the forefront of Op HONOUR IMHO.


----------



## armyvern

MJP said:
			
		

> We have no volunteers....the direction in our world is all will take the trg and quite frankly it is worth it.  This trg is what should have been presented at the forefront of Op HONOUR IMHO.



I'm quite certain that it will eventually be given to all as it should be.  Welcome to my world of "lodger" where numbers were limited and I had to yell, "What do you mean it's full? Don't you think all Units should have at least some qualified before Unit X has ALL qualified and us outside Units have NONE?"  Ergo, they found me a couple of spots to get a couple of mine on the trg.


----------



## bLUE fOX

beachdown said:
			
		

> Then we have morons like this Judge  :
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/robin-camp-federal-court-judge-inquiry-committee-report-1.3874314



While his choice of words may not have been the best, did you ever read the court transcripts to get the quote in context? Pages 444-445 finds the judge trying to determine the physics of penetration when the female has her fanny in a sink (the word used is passing) and her ankles held together by her pants.

https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/Camp_Docs/2016-09-08%20Exhibts%20-%20Agreed%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf


----------



## exgunnertdo

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> While his choice of words may not have been the best, did you ever read the court transcripts to get the quote in context? Pages 444-445 finds the judge trying to determine the physics of penetration when the female has her fanny in a sink (the word used is passing) and her ankles held together by her pants.
> 
> https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/Camp_Docs/2016-09-08%20Exhibts%20-%20Agreed%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf



You're going to try to defend that in even the smallest way???? While he may have been trying to figure out the physics of penetration, his question was directly along the lines of "why didn't you try harder stop him from raping you?" 



> All right. Which then leads me to the question: Why not -- why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn't penetrate you? ... And when your ankles were held together by your jeans, your skinny jeans, why couldn't you just keep your knees together?



He may have been trying to figure out the "mechanics of penetration" at the start, but it wasn't a bad choice of words...he inappropriately moved into blaming her for being raped.


----------



## armyvern

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> While his choice of words may not have been the best, did you ever read the court transcripts to get the quote in context? Pages 444-445 finds the judge trying to determine the physics of penetration when the female has her fanny in a sink (the word used is passing) and her ankles held together by her pants.
> 
> https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/Camp_Docs/2016-09-08%20Exhibts%20-%20Agreed%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf



No defence of him.  I just read the whole thing (transcript).  Her fanny wasn't in the sink --- it was over the sink while her lower back was  onto the spout of the faucet.  Go look at a bathroom sink and see if your butt would actually be IN the sink while your lower back/tailbone (where the medically documented bruising was) laid across the top of the faucet.  

And her pants were actually around one ankle ... not both.


----------



## bLUE fOX

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole transcript and that bit about the sink was pointed out to me by someone else and at the time, while the wording is awful, it didn't seem to me like an unreasonable question, mostly because I was under the impression that both ankles were bound and that she was stuck in the sink similar to the way someone might fall into a toilet (the bathroom sink in my last apartment was stupid huge by the way).

I suppose this goes to show how someone like me can erroneously hand pick information to try and make a point.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I found the latest bystander training way more appropriate and relevant than the Op Honour briefs.



Never heard of this.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile ...


> Yesterday (30 Nov), Captain David Christensen pleaded guilty to one charge at a standing court martial in Kingston, Ontario and was reduced to the rank of Lieutenant.
> 
> The charges related to an act of sexual misconduct against a female member of the Canadian Armed Forces in Kingston, Ontario, on June 10, 2015.
> 
> *Quick Facts*
> 
> Of the two charges which were preferred by the Director of Military Prosecutions on July 21, 2016 Chief Military Judge, Colonel Mario Dutil:
> 
> stayed one charge of sexual assault under section 130 of the National Defence Act (section 271 Criminal Code of Canada).
> 
> found Lieutenant Christensen guilty of one charge of having behaved in a disgraceful manner under section 93 of the NDA.
> 
> Colonel Dutil sentenced Lieutenant Christensen to a reduction in rank to Lieutenant from Captain.
> 
> A reduction in rank is a significant punishment within the military justice system, and has a direct consequence on the reduced CAF member’s career and pay.
> 
> The CAF takes all allegations of any form of sexual misconduct seriously and is committed to dealing with them as quickly as possible ...


----------



## rmc_wannabe

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile ...



I will hold my tongue, as this issue hits close to home, but I hope and pray the administrative action system is less forgiving than the judicial system. 

Its sickening to think that the price to pay for sexual assaulting a subordinate is $787/month.


----------



## beachdown

......background info



> Bystanders are defined as those soldiers that are neither a perpetrator nor a victim. Providing the knowledge of what it means to be an active bystander and supporting those who come forward will serve to assist our soldiers in combatting harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour (HISB) within our ranks.








			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Never heard of this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Tks!


----------



## slayer/raptor

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I will hold my tongue, as this issue hits close to home, but I hope and pray the administrative action system is less forgiving than the judicial system.
> 
> Its sickening to think that the price to pay for sexual assaulting a subordinate is $787/month.



Careful, the court found him not guilty of sexual assault, but I wasn't there. 

Seems that most of the court martials I've read all of them had the sexual assault charge dropped but got charged with acting in a disgraceful manner.


----------



## dapaterson

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Careful, the court found him not guilty of sexual assault, but I wasn't there.



No.  The court did not.

The two charges were laid in alternate to each other; he was found guilty of one, and the second was stayed.

http://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/180717/index.do 

Laying of charges in alternative:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-02/ch-107.page#cha-107-05

Findings in the case of charges laid in the alternative:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-02/ch-112.page#cha-112-40

(2) Where offences have been charged in the alternative and the court finds the accused guilty of one of the alternative charges, the court shall:
a.if, on any other alternative charge, the evidence proved the offence, direct that the proceedings be stayed on the charge (see article 112.80 – Effect of a Stay of Proceedings); or
b.if, on any other alternative charge, the evidence does not prove the offence, pronounce a finding of not guilty on the charge.


----------



## slayer/raptor

Ok, thanks for that, I'm not that familiar with the military law system, but regardless (trying to stay in my lane here) he was not found guilty of sexual assault if the charge was stayed, if I understand it correctly?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Ok, thanks for that, I'm not that familiar with the military law system, but regardless (trying to stay in my lane here) he was not found guilty of sexual assault if the charge was stayed, if I understand it correctly?



No. A stayed charged simply means that the Court decided (for whatever reason) not to proceed with the charge. It still exists. 

A stayed charge gives no opinion on guilt or innocence.

(Hopefully I have remembered my presiding officer training correctly...)


----------



## beachdown

...can you or anyone else pls detail how one goes about getting people registered on this crse i.e. links, site, process, etc

Cheers




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> All reports back to me from our pers who underwent this trg are nothing but good.  A good sign is that we also had lots of volunteers to take the training.


----------



## dangerboy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> No. A stayed charged simply means that the Court decided (for whatever reason) not to proceed with the charge. It still exists.
> 
> A stayed charge gives no opinion on guilt or innocence.
> 
> (Hopefully I have remembered my presiding officer training correctly...)



From the military justice manual:



> While a stay of proceedings is not a finding, per se, it has the effect of halting or
> suspending the trial proceedings for an indefinite period. Therefore, although there are certain
> circumstances where another finding can be substituted for a stay of proceedings,150 for most
> practical purposes, a stay of proceedings has the same effect as a finding of not guilty for the
> charge on which the stay has been directed.151 At the summary trial a stay of proceedings is used
> when alternative charges have been laid. When the presiding officer finds the accused guilty of
> one of the alternative charges, the presiding officer will pronounce a finding of guilt for that
> charge, and direct that the proceedings be stayed on all the alternative charges.


----------



## McG

beachdown said:
			
		

> ...can you or anyone else pls detail how one goes about getting people registered on this crse i.e. links, site, process, etc


If you are in the Army (the command, not the uniform) then this training will find you.  It is not a course.  It is like the RoE brief for Op HONOUR.


----------



## Remius

MCG said:
			
		

> If you are in the Army (the command, not the uniform) then this training will find you.  It is not a course.  It is like the RoE brief for Op HONOUR.



It's supposed to be recorded on your MPRR as well.  Or so we were told when we did ours and we are tracking our pers.  Basically command teams are getting this then giving the brief to sub unit command teams and they are giving it down until every soldier has been given it.  Takes about two hours.

And I concur with the sentiment that it is worth it.


----------



## ModlrMike

MCG said:
			
		

> If you are in the Army (the command, not the uniform) then this training will find you.  It is not a course.  It is like the RoE brief for Op HONOUR.



This has been out since at least june, and the first I hear of it is on this means? I will have to chase this down when I go into the unit tonight. I hope it's not just for the Army, as the rest of us would benefit as well.


----------



## Journeyman

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This has been out since at least june, and the first I hear of it is on this means?


If it's any consolation, I first heard about it when the CO told me to add it to the training calendar.... the date he chose was during Christmas leave.  I explained that he would likely be very, very lonely.


----------



## beachdown

I found the directive for it





			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This has been out since at least june, and the first I hear of it is on this means? I will have to chase this down when I go into the unit tonight. I hope it's not just for the Army, as the rest of us would benefit as well.


----------



## ModlrMike

That confirms that it may be an Army initiative. Probably why we sailors have not heard of it.


----------



## beachdown

....IMHO having just digested the contents of the original documents, everyone in the CAF should receive this training and acknowledge understanding everything talked about. The CDS's message is clear and if some nincompoops still refuse to comprehend the main concerns here, then the long arm of the law should come down heavy


----------



## dapaterson

While the directive to have all pers in the Army trained is an Army initiative, the briefing material is available to all CAF personnel through the website of CSRT-SM.

(Edit to fix name of website)


----------



## ModlrMike

dapaterson said:
			
		

> While the directive to have all pers in the Army trained is an Army initiative, the briefing material is available to all CAF personnel through the website of DG-SMRT.



Why does that acronym immediately make me think this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcGQpjCztgA


----------



## Remius

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Why does that acronym immediately make me think this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcGQpjCztgA



I was thinking the exact thing when I saw that and immediately thought Dataperson made it up.  lol.


----------



## beachdown

Meanwhile....across the pond, not a sexual assault but verbal assault / harassment.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/01/top-female-cop-who-slammed-colleague-over-boob-job-wont-be-fired

Side note: Dr Kellie Leitch has an answer to defending one's self against potential sexual assault on women and it's a goodie

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/01/women-should-be-allowed-to-pepper-spray-and-mace-attackers-leitch-says.html


----------



## LePadre

beachdown said:
			
		

> ...can you or anyone else pls detail how one goes about getting people registered on this crse i.e. links, site, process, etc



Did the training this week. I have to agree that I found this by far the most useful OP HONOUR related training that we have received thus far. So much so that I offered to do a few more sessions of it in order to assist the officer delivering the training. 

If I am not mistaken, I believe the intent is to make this compulsory training for every CAF member and DND civilian. Which means that the training ought to be coming to you shortly.


----------



## LePadre

Remius said:
			
		

> It's supposed to be recorded on your MPRR as well.



Yes it has a code.


----------



## McG

Apparently, after media reports that too many sexual misconduct charges were seeing convictions of lesser offences, the CDS has stated such pets will be kicked out administratively.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ctvnews/status/804885773342441472

https://mobile.twitter.com/ctvnews/status/804885723539238912


----------



## Ping Monkey

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-advances-fight-against-sexual-misconduct-1.3187952



> Military advances fight against sexual misconduct
> 
> Days after victims of military sexual assault raised concerns about lenient sentences, CTV News has learned of a new directive from Canada’s top soldier to remove from their jobs anyone who has committed sexual misconduct.
> 
> Gen. Johnathan Vance told CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson that he will now discharge anyone found to have sexually harassed or harmed another member of the military, even if he or she has struck a plea deal in a military court.
> 
> Women and men who spoke to CTV News earlier this week said their sexual assault cases had not resulted in harsh enough punishments. In one case, an man who sexually assaulted a woman of lower rank was punished by losing a rank and a $2,500 fine.
> 
> After Statistics Canada reported Monday that the prevalence of sexual assault is far higher in the military than the general population, Vance said, “as far as I’m concerned, I’m happy if they leave our ranks permanently.”
> 
> As part of the ongoing sexual misconduct crackdown known as “Operation Honour,” 29 members of the military have already been forced out due to sexual misconduct, while three remain but are receiving counselling and probation, and three remain due to lack of evidence.
> 
> Earlier this week, two more soldiers faced court martials on sexual assault charges but pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disgraceful conduct and had their sexual assault charges stayed.
> 
> CTV News has learned that both perpetrators will be now be served with “intent to release,” meaning they will be kicked out of the military.
> 
> Victims say the news of the new directive has left them with a sense of relief and that other victims are now more likely to come forward.
> 
> Defence sources say it addresses some of the frustration inside the military that military courts were not handing down harsh enough punishments to deter bad behaviour.


----------



## daftandbarmy

duffman said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-advances-fight-against-sexual-misconduct-1.3187952



I wonder if this will be applied retroactively, or will previous 'evil doers' be grandfathered in?


----------



## Journeyman

duffman said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-advances-fight-against-sexual-misconduct-1.3187952
> 
> Gen. Johnathan Vance told CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson that he will now discharge anyone found to have sexually harassed or harmed another member of the military, even if he or she has struck a plea deal in a military court.


I guess we can start culling the herd of military lawyers.  With this arbitrary release decision, there's much less requirement for our high-priced legal experts to expend time on arguing fair sentencing; this now frees up lawyers to work on other pending cases.  

Instead of a fictional CF-18 'capability gap,' we'll now have an equally notional 'judiciary glut.'
      op:


----------



## George Wallace

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Instead of a fictional CF-18 'capability gap,' we'll now have an equally notional 'judiciary glut.'
> op:



See!  The Budget will balance itself.  op:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess we can start culling the herd of military lawyers.  With this arbitrary release decision, there's much less requirement for our high-priced legal experts to expend time on arguing fair sentencing; this now frees up lawyers to work on other pending cases.
> 
> Instead of a fictional CF-18 'capability gap,' we'll now have an equally notional 'judiciary glut.'
> op:



Someone was goofing around at work last week and grabbed my ass. You figure this means if I complain they would get released from the military?

I wonder if frivolous harassment and assault complaints will be dealt with in the same finality.


----------



## ballz

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess we can start culling the herd of military lawyers.  With this arbitrary release decision, there's much less requirement for our high-priced legal experts to expend time on arguing fair sentencing; this now frees up lawyers to work on other pending cases.
> 
> Instead of a fictional CF-18 'capability gap,' we'll now have an equally notional 'judiciary glut.'
> op:



I'll be curious to see the effect of this. If there is absolutely no discretion used in applying this (God forbid the machine and leadership actually exercise discretion), it's going to cause some people to fight smaller things that they would have plead guilty too, it very well could result in even more less severe punishments on the judicial side of the house since the defense will obviously argue "he is now going to be released from the military" as a mitigating factor in sentencing, etc, etc.... Part of me thinks this may cause more backlog.



			
				duffman said:
			
		

> Days after _*victims of military sexual assault*_ raised concerns about lenient sentences, CTV News has learned of a new directive from Canada’s top soldier to remove from their jobs anyone who has committed sexual misconduct.



But, at least we can stop paying judges so much money to be objective / impartial, we've got angry victims and a judge/jury/executioner all rolled up into one with the CDS, so we should be fine without judges to rule on sentences anymore.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=ballz]
But, at least we can stop paying judges so much money to be objective / impartial, we've got angry victims and a judge/jury/executioner all rolled up into one with the CDS, so we should be fine without judges to rule on sentences anymore.
[/quote]

It appears like judges lately aren't doing themselves any favors. There have been some pretty questionable verdicts from judges both civilian and military.


----------



## FJAG

While there are some few judges who have not done the profession proud, I think that most "questionable verdicts" are not so much that they are out of line but are portrayed to be that way because commentators these days can go from zero to totally outraged at the drop of a hat without actually reading the judgement or understanding sentencing principles.

Generally the judges are addressing these cases within the standards of the existing law and by reasonably balancing the competing interests in society. 

I've always said that analysing a sexual assault case is very difficult task. When a person stabs another, for example, there is generally very little to analyse about the case beyond self-defence, because no one is likely to consent to being stabbed. On the other hand a sexual act can be found to be consensual or non-consensual depending on who you believe and how the facts check out the two competing versions. Few sexual assaults are the drag-them-off-the-street type of events. The difficult cases come from alcohol fuelled parties and prior consensual relationships where the court is hard pressed to find the truth and these are the ones that always draw the biggest criticism when the court is left with a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The same can be said for balancing the competing interests in sentencing. While there have been some cases of outrageous judicial stupidity that have rightfully drawn fire, for the most part the courts do a good job. Such individual cases are properly dealt with by judicial disciplining panels and do not call for an overall systemic change.  (I take that back in one respect: the speed with which investigations and the judicial process works, especially in the military, is greatly in need of a systemic change) :2c:

 :subbies:


----------



## putz

FJAG said:
			
		

> While there are some few judges who have not done the profession proud, I think that most "questionable verdicts" are not so much that they are out of line but are portrayed to be that way because commentators these days can go from zero to totally outraged at the drop of a hat without actually reading the judgement or understanding sentencing principles.
> 
> Generally the judges are addressing these cases within the standards of the existing law and by reasonably balancing the competing interests in society.
> 
> I've always said that analysing a sexual assault case is very difficult task. When a person stabs another, for example, there is generally very little to analyse about the case beyond self-defence, because no one is likely to consent to being stabbed. On the other hand a sexual act can be found to be consensual or non-consensual depending on who you believe and how the facts check out the two competing versions. Few sexual assaults are the drag-them-off-the-street type of events. The difficult cases come from alcohol fuelled parties and prior consensual relationships where the court is hard pressed to find the truth and these are the ones that always draw the biggest criticism when the court is left with a reasonable doubt as to guilt.
> 
> The same can be said for balancing the competing interests in sentencing. While there have been some cases of outrageous judicial stupidity that have rightfully drawn fire, for the most part the courts do a good job. Such individual cases are properly dealt with by judicial disciplining panels and do not call for an overall systemic change.  (I take that back in one respect: the speed with which investigations and the judicial process works, especially in the military, is greatly in need of a systemic change) :2c:
> 
> :subbies:



I agree with virtually everything you say. Only exception is speed of investigations.  Investigations, for the most part (MP type not unit led) seem to be very detailed and go fairly fast.  Pre charge screening on the other hand......


----------



## beachdown

I find it hard to fathom that in light of everything in the news, and the Operation Honour brief we've had so far, someone is still dumb enough / not getting it and see the need to "grab ***".  :

There is no such thing as frivolous harassment.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Someone was goofing around at work last week and grabbed my ***. You figure this means if I complain they would get released from the military?*
> 
> I wonder if frivolous harassment and assault complaints will be dealt with in the same finality.


----------



## beachdown

Not just that.....The last 2 offenders in the news it seems have the benefit of not having a criminal record and registering as sex offenders



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I wonder if this will be applied retroactively, or will previous 'evil doers' be grandfathered in?


----------



## brihard

beachdown said:
			
		

> Not just that.....The last 2 offenders in the news it seems have the benefit of not having a criminal record and registering as sex offenders



A conviction under S.93 should still result in a criminal record. A criminal record is the default for federal convictions except where a section of law explicitly excludes certain convictions. A lot of more minor NDA convictions, if sentenced fall within a certain range, will not result in a criminal record. S.93, Disgraceful Conduct, does not fall in that category.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

beachdown said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as frivolous harassment.



yes there is.  I have knowledge of 2 case that were fabricated.   One in 1998 and one in 2010.    No actions were taken against the accusing mbr.


----------



## Jarnhamar

FJAG said:
			
		

> While there are some few judges who have not done the profession proud, I think that most "questionable verdicts" are not so much that they are out of line but are portrayed to be that way because commentators these days can go from zero to totally outraged at the drop of a hat without actually reading the judgement or understanding sentencing principles.



Fair enough. That's why I say appeared to.  We really only really pick up on cases that hit the news and media and by that time it's usually a social justice shit storm whether it's warranted or not. The WTF rulings get the most attention.  As much as I hate SM I think in some cases the law has tried to bury cases or not do their job and people didn't accept it and made the law revise their decisions.  Rehtaeh Parsons's case comes to mind. I recently read the hacker responsible for hacking into the schools computers (and essentially forcing the police to do more) is facing more jail time and the girls rapists.

I'm going off track though. I wanted to ask you or other military members involved with this stuff about something. It seems like many people feel that victims of sexual harassment and assault are very often put on trial themselves and basically shamed on the stand (I've personally seen it twice). Do you think there is an atmosphere of putting the victim on trial within the CAF?




			
				beachdown said:
			
		

> I find it hard to fathom that in light of everything in the news, and the Operation Honour brief we've had so far, someone is still dumb enough / not getting it and see the need to "grab ***".  :


Horseplay with alpha males in their own den.   The CAF will never be able to turn the work place into a sterile zone with androgynous people observing a 3 foot personal space bubble.  That's where the bystander training is more relevant than a CO cramming a battalion into a room and telling people not to be assholes.


----------



## beachdown

This is like asking if racism exist in the CAF subliminally / covertly



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you think there is an atmosphere of putting the victim on trial within the CAF?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

beachdown said:
			
		

> This is like asking if racism exist in the CAF subliminally / covertly



And the answer (in your opinion)?

 :dunno:


----------



## Jarnhamar

beachdown said:
			
		

> This is like asking if racism exist in the CAF subliminally / covertly


Have you been a witness, victim or assisting officer type person at a sexual harassment or assault trial?


----------



## beachdown

Yes to all of that both on civvie street (a few times) and in the CAF



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Have you been a witness, victim or assisting officer type person at a sexual harassment or assault trial?


----------



## Jarnhamar

A victim, a witness and assisting officer during military and civilian harassment and assault trials?  So at least 5 to 6 trials? That's a lot of exposure. How were victims "put on trial" while you were a witness and assisting officer during military trials?


----------



## ballz

I don't envy anyone who has to try and come up with a solution to dealing with sexual assaults from a judicial branch point of view. At the end of the day, the presumption of innocence is absolutely paramount and cannot in any way be compromised. The unfortunate part of this means that, essentially, the alleged victim *is* put on a trial... and I am not sure there is any other way to deal with it.

This is an excellent interview with a woman I admire. Marie Henein was Jian Gomeshi's lawyer. She came under a lot of fire from women and more recently had university students protesting having her speak at their university (this is a whole other rant). She shares her perspective here and thankfully has already organized all of these thoughts long before this interview and is well-spoken about them so that she exposes Peter Mansbridge's idiocy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XB5fG7gbZ0

It is a shitty reality, however, that the victims cannot get justice without being subject to this. I can only think of a few small ideas to help them but in the end, it would never enough.


----------



## armyvern

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It seems like many people feel that victims of sexual harassment and assault are very often put on trial themselves and basically shamed on the stand (I've personally seen it twice). Do you think there is an atmosphere of putting the victim on trial within the CAF?



I did not witness that during the CM where I sat on the Panel as a member.


----------



## armyvern

beachdown said:
			
		

> Yes to all of that both on civvie street (a few times) and in the CAF



Agreed it happens as we hear cases of it in the news all the time.  It doesn't happen every time though.  I understand this topic is close to you (it is the only topic you've posted in on this site since joining).

I think that victim-blaming is not on; however, I also believe that one should let the justice system take it's course and I do believe in the courts having to prove one's guilt.  Good democracies depend upon that.  

I have a friend who is a victim of sexual assault and he is still highly impacted by it to this day --- and I suspect forever will be.  I also was involved in one where the allegations were proven to be false (Edited to add: and this guy still deals with the mental issues of that false accusation to this day).

There are no easy answers, but when a case has been proven, then we must treat it seriously and the punishment needs to reflect that harshness.  We shouldn't be hurting our own.


----------



## TCM621

Can we even victim blame until we have established that said person is in fact a victim? If we hold to the standard that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, doesn't it follow that the crime wasn't committed until the crime was proven to be committed? If they defendant is found not guilty,  they could in fact be the victim of slander and libel. A vigorous cross examination is often the only way to find out if they "victim" is truly a victim. 

As a society we seem to have have pushed aside the rights of people who we don't like. The problem is what happens when you are falsely accused? Unless you are willing to go to prison and be known as a sex offender for the rest of your life in order to spare the psyche of the alleged victim,  you are being a hypocrite.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## brihard

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't envy anyone who has to try and come up with a solution to dealing with sexual assaults from a judicial branch point of view. At the end of the day, the presumption of innocence is absolutely paramount and cannot in any way be compromised. The unfortunate part of this means that, essentially, the alleged victim *is* put on a trial... and I am not sure there is any other way to deal with it.
> 
> This is an excellent interview with a woman I admire. Marie Henein was Jian Gomeshi's lawyer. She came under a lot of fire from women and more recently had university students protesting having her speak at their university (this is a whole other rant). She shares her perspective here and thankfully has already organized all of these thoughts long before this interview and is well-spoken about them so that she exposes Peter Mansbridge's idiocy.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XB5fG7gbZ0
> 
> It is a shitty reality, however, that the victims cannot get justice without being subject to this. I can only think of a few small ideas to help them but in the end, it would never enough.



Agreed. One of the best things that can be done for victims in these cases is as thorough and complete an investigation as possible, to increase the chance of a guilty plea and being spared a trial. A guilty plea before trial will often be a mitigating factor in sentencing. However, at the end of the day, if the accused decides they're going to fight the charge, ultimately all of the facts must be tried, and that includes the victim being subject to cross examination from defense. I wish there was a better way, but there isn't.



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Can we even victim blame until we have established that said person is in fact a victim? If we hold to the standard that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, doesn't it follow that the crime wasn't committed until the crime was proven to be committed? If they defendant is found not guilty,  they could in fact be the victim of slander and libel. A vigorous cross examination is often the only way to find out if they "victim" is truly a victim.
> 
> As a society we seem to have have pushed aside the rights of people who we don't like. The problem is what happens when you are falsely accused? Unless you are willing to go to prison and be known as a sex offender for the rest of your life in order to spare the psyche of the alleged victim,  you are being a hypocrite.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



The lack of conviction does not mean the victim was not a victim. The inability to achieve a conviction on a criminal offense does not mean the act of victimization did not take place, it merely means that the crown is unable to establish the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. It may mean that the act failed to meet the criminal threshold for the offense charged (e.g., harassment is often not a criminal offense), and in many cases it can simply be very hard to get a conviction because of he said/she said. Remember that the threshold for criminal conviction is well beyond balance of probabilities. To claim that a crime wasn't committed until a conviction is achieved is patently absurd.


----------



## armyvern

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Can we even victim blame until we have established that said person is in fact a victim? If we hold to the standard that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, doesn't it follow that the crime wasn't committed until the crime was proven to be committed? If they defendant is found not guilty,  they could in fact be the victim of slander and libel. A vigorous cross examination is often the only way to find out if they "victim" is truly a victim.
> 
> As a society we seem to have have pushed aside the rights of people who we don't like. The problem is what happens when you are falsely accused? Unless you are willing to go to prison and be known as a sex offender for the rest of your life in order to spare the psyche of the alleged victim,  you are being a hypocrite.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



There's absolutely nothing wrong with cross examination.

There IS something wrong with cross examination that asks, "what were you wearing a mini-skirt for?"  "How many men have you slept with this month"?   That shit has nothing to do with whether or not a person was sexually assaulted by another person on the actual date of the allegation.

THAT kind of shit happens all too often and it is victim-blaming ... IE:  putting the victim on trial rather than the accused.


----------



## FJAG

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Have you been a witness, victim or assisting officer type person at a sexual harassment or assault trial?



During the early part of my legal career I practised a broader range of law then I finally settled into. It included criminal and family law and I was involved in acting on a half dozen cases involving sexual assault (three of them children). 

Our type of legal system is called an "adversarial process" where, in effect, two or more parties on opposing sides of the issue are involved with both presenting evidence favourable to their side and tearing down the evidence which is unfavourable (usually through cross examining the other sides witnesses or presenting witnesses that contradict the other sides evidence)

The code of ethics of the legal profession requires both a high level of decorum while also requiring that lawyers represent their clients' interests zealously. That obviously leads to circumstances that, to put it politely, will leave a witness in some discomfort, especially if they are a complainant in a sexual assault case. It is a judge's role to balance the truth finding process against an unnecessary and unfair challenge of a witness.

As I mentioned above, the greatest issue with many sexual assault cases is that the sexual act involved could be interpreted as either a consensual (and therefore legal) one or a nonconsensual (and therefore criminal) one. Rigorous cross examinations are often needed to explore the facts presented. This rarely leaves a witness feeling warm and fuzzy about his/her experience in the majority of cases. 

All too often criminal defence lawyers become over-zealous in their role (which is one of the reasons I stopped doing criminal law -- I simply couldn't crank up that "last lone knight fighting against the might of the prosecution" attitude) This is where the judge has to step in and keep order. Again, it's a difficult balancing act. On the one hand a witness may be being treated unfairly while on the other an innocent man's ability to raise a reasonable doubt about the crime is being curtailed.

It's long been a legal mantra that "it's better that a hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man be jailed". To some extent we are leaving that principle behind in sexual assault cases where the mood in the press and in certain quarters of our society seems to be: "where there's smoke there's fire--hang him high".

This is why I don't jump on the band wagon of those who are quick to be outraged by what they read in the press.

 :subbies:


----------



## Jarnhamar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There's absolutely nothing wrong with cross examination.
> 
> There IS something wrong with cross examination that asks, "what were you wearing a mini-skirt for?"  "How many men have you slept with this month"?   That shit has nothing to do with whether or not a person was sexually assaulted by another person on the actual date of the allegation.
> 
> THAT kind of shit happens all too often and it is victim-blaming ... IE:  putting the victim on trial rather than the accused.



Thanks ArmyVern. That's what I was trying to articulate.  In my admitted very uninformed opinion I don't see what the colour of a girls underwear was the first time she had sex 15 years ago has to do with her being raped. I get the innocent until proven guilty for the but it seems like in all too many cases we see publicized it appears the defense is being overzealous and basically suggest the woman was "a slut" rather than attacked.  

FJAG thanks for taking the time to post that.

Ballz I remember that case and how the woman was attacked by other women for "being a traitor", sell out, rapist enabler bla bla. That was an interesting case too.


----------



## beachdown

Wrong....check my posts if you are going to make a comment like this  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I understand this topic is close to you (it is the only topic you've posted in on this site since joining).


----------



## mariomike

beachdown said:
			
		

> Wrong....check my posts if you are going to make a comment like this



16/17 in this thread.


----------



## George Wallace

mariomike said:
			
		

> 16/17 in this thread.



I checked as well, earlier today.  One (1) post in a thread, while ALL the rest of your posts are in this particular thread does not belie the fact that you are posting primarily in this thread since you started posting on 29 November; five (5) days ago.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks ArmyVern. That's what I was trying to articulate.  In my admitted very uninformed opinion I don't see what the colour of a girls underwear was the first time she had sex 15 years ago has to do with her being raped. I get the innocent until proven guilty for the but it seems like in all too many cases we see publicized it appears the defense is being overzealous and basically suggest the woman was "a slut" rather than attacked.
> 
> FJAG thanks for taking the time to post that.
> 
> Ballz I remember that case and how the woman was attacked by other women for "being a traitor", sell out, rapist enabler bla bla. That was an interesting case too.



About as interesting as these four Alberta judges, FFS: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-judges-sex-assault-trials-myths-1.3765959


----------



## beachdown

Ack. But the previous poster said "all" my posts have been in this thread. What has this got to do with the subject at hand anyway??????



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I checked as well, earlier today.  One (1) post in a thread, while ALL the rest of your posts are in this particular thread does not belie the fact that you are posting primarily in this thread since you started posting on 29 November; five (5) days ago.


----------



## George Wallace

[


			
				beachdown said:
			
		

> Ack. But the previous poster said "all" my posts have been in this thread. What has this got to do with the subject at hand anyway??????



It has as much to do with this thread as your focusing on that comment and saying that it was not true, when basically it is true.  

So....It has NOTHING to do with this topic, as did your comment(s) questioning your posts.



			
				beachdown said:
			
		

> Wrong....check my posts if you are going to make a comment like this



That was your reply to this:



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I understand this topic is close to you (it is the only topic you've posted in on this site since joining).


----------



## Jarnhamar

beachdown said:
			
		

> Ack. But the previous poster said "all" my posts have been in this thread. What has this got to do with the subject at hand anyway??????



All of your posts (save a generic one) have been in this thread.
You've said you have been a witness and victim in harassment and assault cases both in the military and civi side.
It looked like ArmyVern was being cordial and taking your feelings/situation/past into consideration when she posted.
Your reply came across as condescending, the spirit of what ArmyVern was saying was accurate.


----------



## armyvern

beachdown said:
			
		

> Wrong....check my posts if you are going to make a comment like this



Well, look at you sneaking in last night and making one in another thread.   

And, all it has to do with the subject at hand is that someone asked you what your experience with this was ... and I was just pointing out that it is obviously a subject close to you ... as indicated by your posting history and high interest in this one (I see you're up to two posts in the Africa thread now).  Sit back, relax, and welcome to the site.


----------



## mariomike

OMG I just awarded ArmyVern +2,400 MilPoints!


----------



## armyvern

mariomike said:
			
		

> OMG I just awarded ArmyVern +2,400 MilPoints!



I just reported it to mod as something is definitely glitching.  I just tried to award points to someone by changing the "quantity" of points and the numbers default for me, so I think it's just you!!  My profile isn't allowing it.


----------



## TCM621

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There's absolutely nothing wrong with cross examination.
> 
> There IS something wrong with cross examination that asks, "what were you wearing a mini-skirt for?"  "How many men have you slept with this month"?   That crap has nothing to do with whether or not a person was sexually assaulted by another person on the actual date of the allegation.
> 
> THAT kind of crap happens all too often and it is victim-blaming ... IE:  putting the victim on trial rather than the accused.



Absolutely but it can be a fine line. Sexual assault trials are probably the most difficult of all criminal trials because judges and lawyers have to balance the rights of someone who may have been assaulted and the rights if someone who could have their life ruined.  It is worse than a normal case because their is quite often nothing to go one but two peoples words and a wrong decision could destroy some ones life for ever. I don't envy judges. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## armyvern

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Absolutely but it can be a fine line. Sexual assault trials are probably the most difficult of all criminal trials because judges and lawyers have to balance the rights of someone who may have been assaulted and the rights if someone who could have their life ruined.  It is worse than a normal case because their is quite often nothing to go one but two peoples words and a wrong decision could destroy some ones life for ever. I don't envy judges.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



I'd agree with what you've stated however I will stand firm on my points that her/his (victim) prior sexual histories, how they were dressed, etc have absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not they were sexually assaulted or not.  TOO much of that crap happening.

I've been known to wear mini-skirts, although not lately  :blotto:, and I'm not quite a virgin.  All of which has SFA to do with whether or not a power and control freak would be guilty of sexually assaulting me at some point in the future - whether it be tonight or next year.  That kind of crap should be a firm no-go area for cross examination (and it is supposed to be no-go) - it simply is not relevant.

Kind of like the judge's statement in the case linked in here from Alberta - "Why didn't you keep your knees together?". WTactualF.


----------



## daftandbarmy

mariomike said:
			
		

> OMG I just awarded ArmyVern +2,400 MilPoints!



Two words: Not. Enough.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

New CFCWO video came out today talking about SH where he takes this issue very seriously. As mentioned in the video, this will become his personal mission to eradicate this harmful behavior and hopefully pave the way ahead for futur generations.   

http://forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=ted-talk-with-chief-warrant-officer-kevin-west%2Fiw7nqn47


----------



## George Wallace

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> New CFCWO video came out today talking about SA where he takes this issue very seriously. As mentioned in the video, this will become his personal mission to eradicate this harmful behavior and hopefully pave the way ahead for futur generations.
> 
> http://forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=ted-talk-with-chief-warrant-officer-kevin-west%2Fiw7nqn47



Devil's Advocate:  This is all fine and good, but unless all of Canadian society has eradicated this harmful behavior, the problem will persist with every intake of new recruits.


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Devil's Advocate:  This is all fine and good, but unless all of Canadian society has eradicated this harmful behavior, the problem will persist with every intake of new recruits.



That statement completly mystifies me.  I am not trying to start a fight, but what are you stating in that post?


----------



## George Wallace

John Tescione said:
			
		

> That statement completly mystifies me.  I am not trying to start a fight, but what are you stating in that post?



 ???

You can not eradicate a problem in your little organization if all the rest of society still have that problem, and they are the pool from which you recruit from.  Until the rest of society successfully eradicates that problem, the problem will continue to persist in your organization every time you bring in new people from outside the organization.  No matter how many times you eradicate the problem, it will regenerate every time you recruit.

Is that a little clearer?

[Again....That is playing Devil's Advocate.]


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> You can not eradicate a problem in your little organization if all the rest of society still have that problem, and they are the pool from which you recruit from.  Until the rest of society successfully eradicates that problem, the problem will continue to persist in your organization every time you bring in new people from outside the organization.  No matter how many times you eradicate the problem, it will regenerate every time you recruit.
> 
> Is that a little clearer?
> 
> [Again....That is playing Devil's Advocate.]



Like suicide....


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Devil's Advocate:  This is all fine and good, but unless all of Canadian society has eradicated this harmful behavior, the problem will persist with *every intake of new recruits*.


If one of the qualities of a group that wields (up to) deadly force on behalf of Canada is discipline, this just becomes one more harmful behaviour to train people to be disciplined about, no?


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Until the rest of society successfully eradicates that problem, the problem will continue to persist in your organization every time you bring in new people from outside the organization.  No matter how many times you eradicate the problem, it will regenerate every time you recruit.


Even as a devil's advocate position, does this mean training and educating a recruit produces zero change in their behaviour?  Many recruits don't see the merits of making a bed properly, meeting critical timings or paying attention to detail when they join, and there's all sorts of behavioural mod mechanisms in place that appear to eventually ... encourage such behaviour  ;D  



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Like suicide....


And in that example, if an organization sells looking after each other as a hallmark of the system, one would expect that _more_ than just what's available to society is offered to modify such behaviour.  Not at ALL bashing systems in place, but I don't think "well, there's _already_ bad shit in society, so there's no need to do better than the norm" is a reasonable standard.  

If disciplined, respectful & supportive behaviour is the norm, the CAF should be seen to be doing tons better than any system without such characteristics.

If you can train _one_ behaviour, you _should_ be able to train others.  Or am I wrong here?  Or am I just naive?


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> You can not eradicate a problem in your little organization if all the rest of society still have that problem, and they are the pool from which you recruit from.  Until the rest of society successfully eradicates that problem, the problem will continue to persist in your organization every time you bring in new people from outside the organization.  No matter how many times you eradicate the problem, it will regenerate every time you recruit.
> 
> Is that a little clearer?
> 
> [Again....That is playing Devil's Advocate.]



Devil's advocate, or the Devil himself......

Where do you come up with these wild concepts, and actually think they are sane??

Oh Bedlham, I come to you...

Tess


----------



## PuckChaser

In that same sense, how long have we had zero tolerance for illicit drugs? Forever? Yet we still have people shooting up in their car before going into work. Maybe if it was automatic release for drug violations like the CDS is trying to do with SM charges, there'd be less people doing it, however if people are going to be douches and force themselves on men/women, no amount of briefings and zero tolerance is going to stop that. They'll still do it, we'll charge and release them, and someone will still say we have a sexual misconduct problem regardless of how low we get the percentage.


----------



## ballz

I don't think its a stretch to say that no matter what you do.... even if you can reduce the rate of sexual misconduct to 1% of what the civilian population experiences... you will not completely eradicate it. As George has said / implied, we are just a snapshot of our society.


----------



## the 48th regulator

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> In that same sense, how long have we had zero tolerance for illicit drugs? Forever? Yet we still have people shooting up in their car before going into work. Maybe if it was automatic release for drug violations like the CDS is trying to do with SM charges, there'd be less people doing it, however if people are going to be douches and force themselves on men/women, no amount of briefings and zero tolerance is going to stop that. They'll still do it, we'll charge and release them, and someone will still say we have a sexual misconduct problem regardless of how low we get the percentage.



Wow, someone is constipated tonight....








Don't mistake that as hard intelligence trying to get out.


----------



## dapaterson

If you set a goal as "Well, we're looking for less, kinda sorta" then nothing will happen. If you set a goal as "Eradicate this" then it's much easier to measure progress.

To quote a certain RCR officer,

Culture change is a long-term endeavor – it is one of the most difficult leadership challenges an organization can undertake, especially one as steeped in tradition as the Canadian Armed Forces. It takes time to generate and inculcate; there are neither magic bullets nor quick fixes.

Probably worth reading: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol16/no3/page6-eng.asp


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> New CFCWO video came out today talking about SH where he takes this issue very seriously. As mentioned in the video, this will become his personal mission to eradicate this harmful behavior and hopefully pave the way ahead for futur generations.
> 
> http://forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=ted-talk-with-chief-warrant-officer-kevin-west%2Fiw7nqn47



I've met CWO Kevin West and listened to him speak about leadership. Really enjoyed listening to him speak. That said and with no disrespect intended  the whole "personal mission to eradicate X from the army" is sorta cliche. _Everyone_ appointed to those senior positions says something like that.  I would be more impressed to see guilty sexual harassers and assaulters get their ass kicked by the system.


----------



## McG

Let's all try to stay on topic and not turn this thread into shots at each other.

Thanks.


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've met CWO Kevin West and listened to him speak about leadership. Really enjoyed listening to him speak. That said and with no disrespect intended  the whole "personal mission to eradicate X from the army" is sorta cliche. _Everyone_ appointed to those senior positions says something like that.  I would be more impressed to see guilty sexual harassers and assaulters get their *** kicked by the system.



I feel all the eradication talk is for public consumption. Deep down, solid leaders like Vance and West know we'll never get rid of it until society gets rid of it. The best we can achieve (which is a far easier goal to attain) is that victims feel the system will take care of their complaints in a speedy and compassionate manner, they have a support system to draw on, offenders are given due process and should they be found guilty, are shown the door.

As soon as we make that culture change (that was alluded to) that the CAF will seriously look into any complaint and charge the accused should there be grounds, we'll be far better off.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I feel all the eradication talk is for public consumption. Deep down, solid leaders like Vance and West know we'll never get rid of it until society gets rid of it. The best we can achieve (which is a far easier goal to attain) is that victims feel the system will take care of their complaints in a speedy and compassionate manner, they have a support system to draw on, offenders are given due process and should they be found guilty, are shown the door.
> 
> As soon as we make that culture change (that was alluded to) that the CAF will seriously look into any complaint and charge the accused should there be grounds, we'll be far better off.



Exactly.


----------



## mariomike

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Deep down, solid leaders like Vance and West know we'll never get rid of it until society gets rid of it.



Reminds me of something I heard from a different employer over 44 years ago. 

Something about belonging to a social group with its own culture. That we were recruited from a society with many prejudices.

I remember these exact words,

"I cannot change your beliefs, but if you treat anyone with disrespect, I can change your employment!”

The whole speech took about 60 seconds, but I never forgot it.


----------



## George Wallace

mariomike said:
			
		

> Reminds me of something I heard from a different employer over 44 years ago. ( Took about 60 seconds, but I never forgot it. )
> 
> Something about belonging to a social group with its own culture. That we were recruited from a society with many prejudices.
> 
> I remember these exact words,
> 
> "I cannot change your beliefs, but if you treat anyone with disrespect, I can change your employment!”
> 
> The whole speech took about 60 seconds, but I never forgot it.



 :goodpost:


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... The best we can achieve (which is a far easier goal to attain) is that victims feel the system will take care of their complaints in a speedy and compassionate manner, they have a support system to draw on, offenders are given due process and should they be found guilty, are shown the door.
> 
> As soon as we make that culture change (that was alluded to) that the CAF will seriously look into any complaint and charge the accused should there be grounds, we'll be far better off.


 :nod:


----------



## Lumber

As anyone in the Navy gotten anything with regard to the new "Bystander" training?

I first heard about it on here (of all place...). And it finally came up in an actual military setting: basically, one of the jr officers I have working for me on OJT got an email from his ULO asking if he and the other guys on OJT here had done the bystander training. He had no idea what it was, so he came to ask me, and I only know about it from this forum! I went and did a quick search of our formation's message centre, and there is no mention of it so far.

How is it that the Army already has a directive out to have everyone in the entire Army complete it by the 15th, and yet on December 5th no one in the Navy has been officially told about it?

Cheers


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lumber:

Have you considered the possibility that "Bystander" is an Army training session, developed by the Army for the Army only, and not a CAF wide training program?

The fact that OP HONOUR is CAF wide does not mean that every aspect of its implementation is also CAF wide and centrally directed. I suspect that subordinate commanders have some leeway in introducing "extra" training in their command as they see fit to meet the objective of the OP.


----------



## WLSC

It's a CAF wild training developed by MPG.  Everyone will go thru it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Then perhaps it is implemented by tranches, one command at a time and the Army got first use.

And, I've been out for a while, so if it's not classified info: what the heck is MPG?


----------



## dapaterson

MPG = CDA + CFRG. For those of a certain age, think CFRETS and you won't be far off.

But the bystander intervention training isn't from MPG.


----------



## Haggis

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Then perhaps it is implemented by tranches, one command at a time and the Army got first use.



It's being delivered as "cascade training".  Senior commanders get it from higher commanders who then "cascade" (deliver) it to the next level of subordinates.  Repeat the process until it gets down to the soldier/sailor/aviator level.

It's not bad and, if properly delivered, can result in some stimulating discussions, particularly amongst audiences with wide spreads in experience and age.


----------



## Haggis

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As soon as we make that culture change (that was alluded to) that the CAF will seriously look into any complaint and charge the accused should there be grounds, we'll be far better off.



"Zero tolerance" does not equal "zero occurrences" and anybody who believes that it does, is seriously fooling themselves.. Much like the CAF Drug Policy (which also touts zero tolerance) there will still be those who think they can get away with it.


----------



## armyvern

IIRC, the qual code for the trg is 1818242; it should be added to the MPRRs of those who have completed.


----------



## George Wallace

Zero Tolerance is one thing.  To Eradicate the problem is a completely different thing.


----------



## Haggis

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Zero Tolerance is one thing.  To Eradicate the problem is a completely different thing.



The only thing the CAF has been truly successful at eradicating is Somalia documents


----------



## George Wallace

Haggis said:
			
		

> The only thing the CAF has been truly successful at eradicating is Somalia documents



 :warstory:

That would mean that they found them.   [


----------



## PuckChaser

Haggis said:
			
		

> The only thing the CAF has been truly successful at eradicating is Somalia documents


So it's wrong to call the shredder at work the "Somalia Photocopier"?


----------



## Journeyman

Haggis said:
			
		

> "Zero tolerance" does not equal "zero occurrences" ....


I think most of our discussion was on: 
a) the expression "zero tolerance," 
b) potential repercussions (official and otherwise) for reporting, perpetrator, and victim, and 
c) whether the 'scenarios' were created by a committee in NDHQ or some grad-student's bot that had no concept of context.

     :dunno:


----------



## Lightguns

This situation blew up last night on the Cornwallis Alumni FB site.  The Admin posted the link to the Class Action Suit and folks started talking about their experiences, then a couple of self identified retired members came in and started calling the stories BS and accusing others on the thread of trying to get free money.  Anyway it all got shut down rather belately.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lightguns said:
			
		

> This situation blew up last night on the Cornwallis Alumni FB site.  The Admin posted the link to the Class Action Suit and folks started talking about their experiences, *then a couple of self identified retired members came in and started calling the stories BS and accusing others on the thread of trying to get free money.  *Anyway it all got shut down rather belately.



So typical Veteran Facebook behavior then.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So typical Veteran Facebook behavior then.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile, the lawyers' version of the class action in play, for the record ...


> Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto, Ontario has commenced a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of current and former female members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> The claim alleges that the Canadian Armed Forces is poisoned by a discriminatory and sexualized culture that condones sexual assault, sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination towards women.
> 
> The sexualized and discriminatory culture in the Canadian Armed Forces is characterized by highly degrading expressions that reference women's bodies, sexual jokes, innuendos, discriminatory comments with respect to the abilities of women, as well as sexual harassment and assault.  The policies in place are ineffective and the Canadian Armed Forces has failed to take the necessary steps to prevent this conduct.  Furthermore, the claim alleges that the Canadian Armed Forces has failed to ensure the advancement and promotion of women in all roles.
> 
> The claim seeks $300 million in damages for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the class members' rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.
> 
> "For too long, women in the Canadian Armed Forces have been denigrated and abused," says Jonathan Ptak, lead counsel at Koskie Minsky LLP, "and this case can start to right these wrongs of the past."
> 
> If you are a current or former female member of the Canadian Armed Forces, please call 1(888) 502-7455, visit www.kmlaw.ca/militaryassaultclassaction or email militaryassaultclassaction@kmlaw.ca.
> 
> Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost class action, pension, trade union, and litigation firms. Its class actions group has been a leader in class actions since 1992 and has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area. Koskie Minsky LLP was counsel to the survivors of former residents of Huronia Regional Centre and 14 other residential facilities for people with disabilities against the Province of Ontario, wherein the Province agreed to pay survivors over $103.6 million and to provide an apology to former residents for the harm they sustained. Koskie Minsky LLP was also counsel in Cloud v. Canada, the first Indian residential schools class action certified in Canada, which resulted in a $4 billion pan-Canadian settlement.


Interesting how legal firms' news releases don't typically include the "these claims haven't been proven in court yet" -- although they do say "alleges" at one point -- that even some MSM include  >


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> This situation blew up last night on the Cornwallis Alumni FB site.  The Admin posted the link to the Class Action Suit and folks started talking about their experiences, then a couple of self identified retired members came in and started *calling the stories BS and accusing others on the thread of trying to get free money*.  Anyway it all got shut down rather belately.


Because (I add sarcastically based on the bit in yellow), after all ...


----------



## mariomike

"The claim seeks $300 million..."

That got my attention.


----------



## FJAG

mariomike said:
			
		

> "The claim seeks $300 million..."
> 
> That got my attention.



Wait until you find out what the lawyers' contingency fee is.

 :subbies:


----------



## mariomike

FJAG said:
			
		

> Wait until you find out what the lawyers' contingency fee is.
> 
> :subbies:



Are they the ones who go on TV and say, "It's NOT about money. It's about JUSTICE!"?


----------



## PuckChaser

mariomike said:
			
		

> Are they the ones who go on TV and say, "It's NOT about money. It's about JUSTICE!"?



Justice for who? According to the lead lawyer's soundbites, its only about women in the CAF. Yes, they're the majority of victims, but there are unfortunately plenty of male plantiffs who could come forward and lend credibility. As soon as you start lumping sexual misconduct in with "lack of promotions and career advancement for women" it screams to me as a feminism pushing an agenda, instead of sorting out deplorable behavior towards other CAF members.


----------



## FJAG

mariomike said:
			
		

> Are they the ones who go on TV and say, "It's NOT about money. It's about JUSTICE!"



That cuts both ways. Let me tell you what I said every time a client came to me wanting to sue someone and told me 'it's not about the money; it's the principle." - "It's always about the money. If not now it will be before this is over."

That said, while there is a role for contingency fees in many cases, these type of class action suits can be a huge revenue stream. Few law firms can afford to carry the costs and expenses associated with running these types of claims (essentially the firm doesn't get paid until it's all over - frequently years and even decades and there is a risk that there may be no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow0. But those that can usually have a fairly large pay day at the end. Standard rates run 30-40% of the settlement/judgment.

 :subbies:


----------



## mariomike

FJAG said:
			
		

> - "It's always about the money. If not now it will be before this is over."


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... there are unfortunately plenty of male plantiffs who could come forward and lend credibility ...


Good point - wonder what the lawyers would say about it?


----------



## FJAG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good point - wonder what the lawyers would say about it?



I looked at the law firms web site and they are of average make-up; 52 lawyers with 17 women and 35 men that specialize in the areas of litigation, labour, pensions and benefits and class actions. In a way it's a boutique firm in that it doesn't have  other key areas of law such as corporate & commercial, criminal, real estate or family law. They don't strike me as being what one would call "feminist" oriented.

I think concentrating solely on CAF women in this gender-based case is probably a strategic one based on the fact that it simplifies the issues and addresses the largest fraction of potential claimants. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-07-Statement-of-Claim-issued-Dec-7-2016.pdf

Warning! Warning! Warning! Reading these claims is guaranteed to raise your blood pressure to dangerously high levels  ullhair:

Note that the firm has a separate and distinct class action lawsuit based on sexual orientation discrimination for the period 1950s to 1990s respecting  CF members in the Maritimes. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Statement_of_Claim_2016_12_06_Dec_re_Military_Class_Action.pdf No. Don't ask. I don't know why this claim is restricted to the Maritimes.

 :subbies:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FJAG said:
			
		

> I looked at the law firms web site and they are of average make-up; 52 lawyers with 17 women and 35 men that specialize in the areas of litigation, labour, pensions and benefits and class actions. In a way it's a boutique firm in that it doesn't have  other key areas of law such as corporate & commercial, criminal, real estate or family law. They don't strike me as being what one would call "feminist" oriented.
> 
> I think concentrating solely on CAF women in this gender-based case is probably a strategic one based on the fact that it simplifies the issues and addresses the largest fraction of potential claimants. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-07-Statement-of-Claim-issued-Dec-7-2016.pdf
> 
> Warning! Warning! Warning! Reading these claims is guaranteed to raise your blood pressure to dangerously high levels  ullhair:
> 
> Note that the firm has a separate and distinct class action lawsuit based on sexual orientation discrimination for the period 1950s to 1990s respecting  CF members in the Maritimes. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Statement_of_Claim_2016_12_06_Dec_re_Military_Class_Action.pdf No. Don't ask. I don't know why this claim is restricted to the Maritimes.
> 
> :subbies:



Just as a guess as to why the sexual orientation class action is restricted to the Maritimes, was there not a huge purge of suspected Lesbians from CFS Shelburne in the 1980s? Maybe they had to work it that way to get it certified?


----------



## FJAG

And then there's this case in BC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/former-canadian-sailor-launches-harassment-suit-against-military-1.3882660

And this one in Ontario: https://ravenlaw.com/2016/11/28/class-action-launched-canadian-armed-forces-sexual-assault-harassment/

 :subbies:


----------



## Lightguns

Who cares, I wish them nothing but luck and I hope everyone who signed on finds what they are looking for in terms of redress.  And for two young ladies I hope they find peace again.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Who cares, I wish them nothing but luck and I hope everyone who signed on finds what they are looking for in terms of redress.  And for two young ladies I hope they find peace again.



I hope justice is correctly administered and handed out.


----------



## captloadie

The CDS and the CAFCWO continue to brief that there is a zero tolerance policy in the CAF, and cases will be dealt with severely. However, I believe there is one element in our system that is being overlooked after reviewing some recent court martial outcomes. One of the goals of sentencing in our justice system is to act as a deterrent to others. With the recent majority of the sexual assault charges having either been downgraded to assault, or were stayed as an alternate charge, the sentencing guidelines have seen penalties being severe, but no one has been dismissed. In one case, the member was found not guilty, although the judge did say in his decision that it wasn't he didn't believe the victims, just that the was reasonable doubt. To me, this doesn't appear to be providing either the deterrent, or showing the public we are serious about getting rid of those who assault their brothers and sisters in arms.

Now, many will say "but I'm sure the administrative system is working in the background and these members will be released anyway". Sure, that may be true, but that isn't being seen to be done. All that information is protected and done behind closed doors. Maybe, while Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct in the CF, is on the front burner, the CAF should be releasing quarterly reports about how many administrative releases have occurred with a nexus to unacceptable sexual behaviour. This, in my mind, would be both a deterrent to others, and a means to demonstrate to the public we are serious about purging guys and gals who aren't getting the message.


----------



## kratz

This site often mentions the CAF is a reflection of Canadian society.

Today's court decision"Jack Kramer acquitted of raping Calgary woman in front of husband in 1995. Calgary man convicted on lesser charges of break and enter and possession of a weapon" Shows even civil courts reflect sentencing decisions similar to what the CAF has been handing out.


----------



## PuckChaser

captloadie said:
			
		

> In one case, the member was found not guilty, although the judge did say in his decision that it wasn't he didn't believe the victims, just that the was reasonable doubt. To me, this doesn't appear to be providing either the deterrent, or showing the public we are serious about getting rid of those who assault their brothers and sisters in arms.



I sincerely hope you're not suggesting we abandon due process for anyone accused of sexual misconduct... Guilty until proven innocent will do more damage to our credibility than a few folks who may or may not be guilty, but there isn't enough proof.

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around. Despite our misgivings about someone walking free, we live in a society governed by the rule of law, not trials by courts of public opinion.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope you're not suggesting we abandon due process for anyone accused of sexual misconduct... Guilty until proven innocent will do more damage to our credibility than a few folks who may or may not be guilty, but there isn't enough proof.
> 
> The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around. Despite our misgivings about someone walking free, we live in a society governed by the rule of law, not trials by courts of _public opinion.
> _



Or political whims...


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=PuckChaser]  live in a society governed by the rule of law, not trials by courts of public opinion.
[/quote]

Unless it's a human rights  tribunal.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... Guilty until proven innocent will do more damage to our credibility than a few folks who may or may not be guilty, but there isn't enough proof ...


Any learned counsel online, *please* correct me if I'm wrong, but even in civil litigation (x sues y), the standard for "winning" is lower than "reasonable doubt", meaning that there are cases where there wasn't enough to _criminally_ convict someone but enough to say they were still _liable_.

Even with due process, my understanding is that other processes may have a lower bar to get over to meet the "gotcha" standard.

On the bit in yellow, we have more than one class-action lawsuit in play that'll show what happens when the pendulum swings too far one way or another.

To do another version of what's been said elsewhere on forums, one has a right to a fair trial and due process, but one doesn't have a right to a job in the CAF.


----------



## FJAG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Any learned counsel online, *please* correct me if I'm wrong, but even in civil litigation (x sues y), the standard for "winning" is lower than "reasonable doubt", meaning that there are cases where there wasn't enough to _criminally_ convict someone but enough to say they were still _liable_.
> 
> Even with due process, my understanding is that other processes may have a lower bar to get over to meet the "gotcha" standard.
> 
> On the bit in yellow, we have more than one class-action lawsuit in play that'll show what happens when the pendulum swings too far one way or another.
> 
> To do another version of what's been said elsewhere on forums, one has a right to a fair trial and due process, but one doesn't have a right to a job in the CAF.



The burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the standard in criminal cases.

The burden of proof in civil cases is "On a balance of probabilities" (aka "preponderance of the evidence"). Effectively this means that the party whose position is more likely than the other's wins. (saying that its 51% more likely, or better, than not is a good analogy) In a civil case where the judge thinks its evenly likely (50/50) then the case goes in favour of the defendant because the plaintiff needs to prove his case to more than 50/50.

This is a simplification because there are other standards as well. For a basic overview of burden of proof issues, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) (Note that it's a bit US oriented)

 :subbies:


----------



## Good2Golf

Like how O.J. was found criminally not guilty of murder, but civilly liable for Nicole and Ron's death?


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Like how O.J. was found criminally not guilty of murder, but civilly liable for Nicole and Ron's death?



Exactly!!

 :subbies:


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Like how O.J. was found criminally not guilty of murder, but civilly liable for Nicole and Ron's death?


OJ's _greatest_  crime.... was bringing lawyer Robert Kardashian to prominence;  we're all suffering the knock-on effects of that.   :'(


----------



## daftandbarmy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OJ's _greatest_  crime.... was bringing lawyer Robert Kardashian to prominence;  we're all suffering the knock-on effects of that.   :'(



OTOH, he did wonders for Ford Bronco sales...


----------



## FJAG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OJ's _greatest_  crime.... was bringing lawyer Robert Kardashian to prominence;  we're all suffering the knock-on effects of that.   :'(



 :rofl:


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:
			
		

> The burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the standard in criminal cases.



Just for the sake of being pedantic and showing up a lawyer D), beyond a reasonable doubt applies to provincial/territorial offences too in all instances I've seen.


----------



## Stoker

Some people were asking what the various elements are doing for OPERATION Honour. For the RCN during WUP's there is scenario based training given to the ships company and Command teams by Sea Training based on a "incident" that happened on board. This is to prepare the ships Company and Command team's to handle the situation in a respectful manner and strategies to prevent such behavior.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Some people were asking what the various elements are doing for OPERATION Honour. For the RCN during WUP's there is scenario based training given to the ships company and Command teams by Sea Training based on a "incident" that happened on board. This is to prepare the ships Company and Command team's to handle the situation in a respectful manner and strategies to prevent such behavior.



I assume it involves a charge parade at some point?


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I assume it involves a charge parade at some point?



"March the Guilty Bastard In" ?


----------



## daftandbarmy

mariomike said:
			
		

> "March the Guilty ******* In" ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brihard said:
			
		

> Just for the sake of being pedantic and showing up a lawyer D), beyond a reasonable doubt applies to provincial/territorial offences too in all instances I've seen.



For CAF members facing being released after pleading to a lower charge,  balance of probability is what they are likely to face though.   Ref CF Military Administrative Law Manual, unless it's changed drastically in the past few years.


----------



## PuckChaser

Price tag for being sexually assaulted? $1B CAD.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-misconduct-lawsuits-1.3893499 (more on link)



> Sexual-misconduct lawsuit against Armed Forces alleges 'reckless' conduct
> 3 former military members spell out allegations of sexual assault and institutional indifference
> 
> By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Dec 12, 2016 8:27 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 13, 2016 7:25 AM ET
> 
> One of the class-action lawsuits filed against the Canadian military by former members and alleged victims of sexual misconduct claims that the Armed Forces were negligent in controlling the behaviour of some its members.
> 
> A statement of claim in a case involving three former members of the Forces was filed Monday in Ontario Superior Court. It says some of the complainants were actively discouraged from reporting incidents.
> 
> The plaintiffs — Nadine Schultz-Nielsen, Larry Beattie and Amy Graham — filed the claim on behalf of all former and current members of the military alleging sexual assault, sexual harassment and abuse of authority. They are also suing on behalf of family members who may have suffered as a result of a loved one's trauma.
> 
> "The conduct of [Canadian Armed Forces] members was reckless, arrogant, high-handed and abusive, and showed a callous disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs and class members," said the court filing, obtained by CBC News. "This conduct is reprehensible and deserves punishment."
> 
> The suit is asking for $1 billion in damages (those who file a suit can attach any price tag they choose).


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Price tag for being sexually assaulted? $1B CAD.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-misconduct-lawsuits-1.3893499 (more on link)



Apparently, it's 1B CAD for simply alleging (ie: not proven, no charges required etc) as per your article (emphasis mine) so the "march the guilty bastards in" is seemingly fit.  Oh, the pendulum doth swing high.



> on behalf of all former and current members of the military alleging sexual assault, sexual harassment and abuse of authority


----------



## beachdown

...from the same article linked above



> *The suit is asking for $1 billion in damages (those who file a suit can attach any price tag they choose)*


----------



## Lightguns

Again it is a class action suit in civil law alleging that the organization has a pattern of failure in it's duty of care to declared victims of certain crimes.  It's not trying to validate each and every allegation ever filed.  Suffice it proves in a balance of probabilities that filed allegations were poorly handled.  I, seriously doubt anyone without some proof of their allegations will be certified in the suit.  The folks I know who signed on to the other suit have either proved their allegations in a court and are seeking redress for emotional/mental issues resulting from their assault or have an excellent paper trail to show their allegations may have been mis-handled.  

Going off on the "March the Guilty XXX in" routine is meaningless.  Even if the suit is found to have merit, no one Perp has anything to fear from the past or the present and not one innocent will be found guilty because of the suit.


----------



## OldSolduer

As I feared, it will turn into a Spanish Inquisition and not the Monty Python variety.

All of us could at one time or another point out a person who has abused their authority on us, we've probably done it a few times ourselves.


----------



## Journeyman

Lightguns said:
			
		

> .... not one innocent will be found guilty because of the suit.


In a purely legal sense, you're probably correct.  

However, it adds to the growing stigma that CAF males (predominantly), especially those in positions of authority, are rampantly running amok sexually abusing military women.  

It's the identical toxin as Black Lives Matter.  Actual statistics of police shootings are irrelevant -- officer colour, situation in which shootings occurred, blacks shot in non-police context, etc -- not remotely part of the narrative; a growing segment of society, having this continually bleated at them, begins to feel that 'there _must_  be something to this otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing about it,' and the mindset that the majority of police _are_  racist murderers becomes established.

I have no doubt that some military personnel have abused and been abused, just like I presume that some police are racist and have pulled the trigger when it may not have been warranted.  For the remainder -- and I believe it's the overwhelming majority of us -- it's a pretty broad brush that you're dismissing as no big deal.


----------



## PuckChaser

Journeyman said:
			
		

> In a purely legal sense, you're probably correct.
> 
> However, it adds to the growing stigma that CAF males (predominantly), especially those in positions of authority, are rampantly running amok sexually abusing military women.
> 
> It's the identical toxin as Black Lives Matter.  Actual statistics of police shootings are irrelevant -- officer colour, situation in which shootings occurred, blacks shot in non-police context, etc -- not remotely part of the narrative; a growing segment of society, having this continually bleated at them, begins to feel that 'there _must_  be something to this otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing about it,' and the mindset that the majority of police _are_  racist murderers becomes established.
> 
> I have no doubt that some military personnel have abused and been abused, just like I presume that some police are racist and have pulled the trigger when it may not have been warranted.  For the remainder -- and I believe it's the overwhelming majority of us -- it's a pretty broad brush that you're dismissing as no big deal.



:goodpost:


----------



## beachdown

You make very rational and valid points below, and not many people actually like to believe that there are racist cops out there (here in Canada). The argument is always..this is a US centric behaviour and that cops in Canada are well trained and intelligent.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> In a purely legal sense, you're probably correct.
> 
> However, it adds to the growing stigma that CAF males (predominantly), especially those in positions of authority, are rampantly running amok sexually abusing military women.
> 
> *It's the identical toxin as Black Lives Matter.  Actual statistics of police shootings are irrelevant -- officer colour, situation in which shootings occurred, blacks shot in non-police context, etc -- not remotely part of the narrative; a growing segment of society, having this continually bleated at them, begins to feel that 'there must  be something to this otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing about it,' and the mindset that the majority of police are  racist murderers becomes established.
> *
> I have no doubt that some military personnel have abused and been abused, *just like I presume that some police are racist and have pulled the trigger when it may not have been warranted.*  For the remainder -- and I believe it's the overwhelming majority of us -- it's a pretty broad brush that you're dismissing as no big deal.


----------



## FJAG

beachdown said:
			
		

> You make very rational and valid points below, and not many people actually like to believe that there are racist cops out there (here in Canada). The argument is always..this is a US centric behaviour and that cops in Canada are well trained and intelligent.



Every one of us is a product of the environment within which we grew up. There is no doubt in my mind that there are some cops out there that have negative attitudes about various issues (racism, homosexuality etc). It's hard to get rid of these attitudes when certain religious groups (which we protect under the Charter) consider it their God-given right (literally) to discriminate.

What galls me more than anything else is how cavalierly many in our society throw out the term "racist" against white people in general or any group in particular. We are constantly accused of being systemically racist and many actions are automatically branded racist when in fact there may very well be an innocent explanation for the event. The corollary these days seems to be that minorities are considered, by default, not racist when in fact they often tend to paint the general white society with a tar brush.

Personally I think we are doing a fairly good job in all of our institutions to eliminate prejudice and anti-social behaviour when and where it is found. I wish that the press and society in general would be critical and outspoken about unfair and unsubstantiated "racist" and other branding of our institutions and their workers. Regretfully in-depth investigative journalism has lost out to shallow sensationalism.

By the way, the vast majority of cops are well trained and intelligent as well as dedicated to protecting and serving every one of our citizens.

 :subbies:


----------



## mariomike

FJAG said:
			
		

> Personally I think we are doing a fairly good job in all of our institutions to eliminate prejudice and anti-social behaviour when and where it is found.



I worked for an institution that had zero gender or minority diversity when I joined. I didn't do the hiring. That's just the way it was back then.

Prejudice? Lots of it. Especially among the older men. But, it was kept in the stations. 
Anti-social behavior? Not ever. Never!  ( Inside the stations was a different story. Saw a guy struck across the face with a wooden chair arguing about a hockey game on TV, and a few other things. )

We never, ever took our frustrations, whatever they were, out on the neighbourhood. Certainly not inside people's homes. In fact, it was quite the opposite.
Anyone who did got fired. Union or no union. There was no sensitivity training.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> By the way, the vast majority of cops are well trained and intelligent as well as dedicated to protecting and serving every one of our citizens.



Welcome to Toronto!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

mariomike said:
			
		

> Anti-social behavior? Not ever. Never!  ( Inside the stations was a different story. Saw a guy struck across the face with a wooden chair arguing about a hockey game on TV, and a few other things. )



That's not anti-social: That's a pretty run of the mill Canadiens vs Bruins hockey game meet around here.  [


----------



## dapaterson

The Army has posted a link to Jackson Katz' speech on "Violence against women - it's a men's issue".

Army page: http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/western-news-details-secondary-menu.page?doc=canadian-army-using-bystander-training-from-ted-talk-in-support-of-operation-honour/iw7nt9c3

TEDtalk by Jackson Katz: https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue?language=en


----------



## beachdown

Why then when there is a blatant racist attack/behaviour on a minority group, don't majority of White people speak out in support of the minority group that is being wronged? Don't you think if we adopt the attitude of ' we won't tolerate this behaviour', that we might start to see changes?

People jump on the case of Black lives matter folks, but I honestly think if the majority i.e. Whites join in with the cause, then society as a whole might just change its attitude towards all groups e.g. LGBT and other minorities



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Every one of us is a product of the environment within which we grew up. There is no doubt in my mind that there are some cops out there that have negative attitudes about various issues (racism, homosexuality etc). It's hard to get rid of these attitudes when certain religious groups (which we protect under the Charter) consider it their God-given right (literally) to discriminate.
> 
> What galls me more than anything else is how cavalierly many in our society throw out the term "racist" against white people in general or any group in particular. We are constantly accused of being systemically racist and many actions are automatically branded racist when in fact there may very well be an innocent explanation for the event. *The corollary these days seems to be that minorities are considered, by default, not racist when in fact they often tend to paint the general white society with a tar brush.*
> 
> Personally I think we are doing a fairly good job in all of our institutions to eliminate prejudice and anti-social behaviour when and where it is found. I wish that the press and society in general would be critical and outspoken about unfair and unsubstantiated "racist" and other branding of our institutions and their workers. Regretfully in-depth investigative journalism has lost out to shallow sensationalism.
> 
> By the way, the vast majority of cops are well trained and intelligent as well as dedicated to protecting and serving every one of our citizens.
> 
> :subbies:


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=beachdown]

People jump on the case of Black lives matter folks, but I honestly think if the majority i.e. Whites join in with the cause, then society as a whole might just change its attitude towards all groups e.g. LGBT and other minorities
[/quote]

Do you know what happens when whites try to "stand in solidarity" with groups like IdleNoMore and BlackLivesMatter? The whites get told to STFU and know their place because they're still racist pieces of shit that are responsible for everything.


----------



## Infanteer

beachdown said:
			
		

> People jump on the case of Black lives matter folks, but I honestly think if the majority i.e. Whites join in with the cause, then society as a whole might just change its attitude towards all groups e.g. LGBT and other minorities



You mean like this?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/30/black-lives-matter-torches-justin-timberlake-demonstrating-their-selfish-ineptitude/


----------



## beachdown

You mean this happens all the time?



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you know what happens when whites try to "stand in solidarity" with groups like IdleNoMore and BlackLivesMatter? The whites get told to STFU and know their place because they're still racist pieces of crap that are responsible for everything.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

beachdown said:
			
		

> You mean this happens all the time?



Where I live? Pretty much all of the time....


----------



## beachdown

I guess the group must be thinking....what will someone that has the white privilege going for them know about what minorities face on a daily basis  ???

However, there is a distinct difference btw xenophobia and racism



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Where I live? Pretty much all of the time....


----------



## Journeyman

beachdown said:
			
		

> ....not many people actually like to believe that there are racist cops out there (here in Canada). The argument is always..this is a US centric behaviour and that cops in Canada are well trained and intelligent.


I'd attempt to respond but: a)  I'm not really sure what you're trying to say;  b)  I tend to default dismiss any point that includes "always" or "100%" or "but everyone thinks...."; and  c)  your somewhat muddled response also seems rather "broad-brush."

Not a fan of any of the above.


----------



## Loachman

beachdown said:
			
		

> Why then when there is a blatant racist attack/behaviour on a minority group, don't majority of White people speak out in support of the minority group that is being wronged? Don't you think if we adopt the attitude of ' we won't tolerate this behaviour', that we might start to see changes?
> 
> People jump on the case of Black lives matter folks, but I honestly think if the majority i.e. Whites join in with the cause, then society as a whole might just change its attitude towards all groups e.g. LGBT and other minorities



A lot of people support the principles of all lives, including black lives, being of equal value, but the Black Lives Matter movement is no longer about that, if it ever was. It is a racist, anti-white, anti-police movement that actively calls for murdering police and causes riots that destroy black-owned property.

It will start a riot over any police-involved shooting, regardless of the circumstances, based upon lies, and before any investigation has begun, but completely ignores the horrendous black-on-black violence.

It was spawned by the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, when Michael Brown's criminal accomplice claimed that he was shot while unarmed and with his hands up. This was contrary to several other witnesses and mounds of forensic evidence. It became the accepted truth almost immediately, and was spread by numerous fake news agencies, also known as the mainstream media.

Since then, in what has become known as the Ferguson Effect, police stay clear of sections of major cities because they are not able to achieve anything of value therein and only put their own lives at risk. The consequence of that is the dramatically increased level of violence that now occurs in those areas. More black lives are being lost because of that, but they apparently do NOT matter because they were not killed by police.

A small number of blacks is making life hell for a much larger number of blacks and blaming it all on whitey. The larger number does not deserve that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

beachdown said:
			
		

> I guess the group must be thinking....what will someone that has the white privilege going for them know about what minorities face on a daily basis  ???


Yup. The same group that finds white privilege in expensive (white) toilet paper and skin coloured band aids.


----------



## mariomike

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's not anti-social: That's a pretty run of the mill Canadiens vs Bruins hockey game meet around here.  [



This was at work. I believe it had to do with station conditions. The size of the kitchen, the feeling of confinement; the age and condition of the stations. They can demoralize in the same way that tenement apartments do. Being constantly startled by alarm bells, instead of gently ramping up the tones and lighting like they do now.  
Feelings of isolation and frustration and being abandoned by city politicians. 

There has been a lot of study on station design in recent years. Modern stations have award winning designs.

As well as the internal dynamics that vary from station to station. Just like in family homes. 

Interestingly, physical fights between "brothers" were never reported. If anyone did complain, they might transfer him to Scarborough.

But, now a simple joke or comment made in poor taste to the wrong co-worker can get a guy into a lot more trouble than that.  



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> A small number of blacks is making life hell for a much larger number of blacks and blaming it all on whitey.


----------



## daftandbarmy

An interesting article on the subject of sexual harassment on the US Parks Service:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/park-service-harassment/510680/


----------



## colmol

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The other thing is perception..............according to some people I probably "sexually assaulted" about 25 women while waiting for my Daughter at a Hamilton mall tonight. :



Pfff, is that all?


----------



## beachdown

Lets not kid ourselves...this sort of behaviour happens here in Canada too. It's despicable that any human should be subjected to such an act...from the article



> Olivia’s assailant sat on top of her for about 20 minutes. When he finally stood up, she moved to the couch. He followed, trying to kiss her and pull her on top of him. She was sure he would rape her, but eventually, after more struggle, he left. The moment the door banged shut, Olivia fell to the floor, sobbing. She walked to the bathroom and stared in the mirror, brushed her teeth harder than she ever had, as if to erase something. The next morning, Olivia took a long drive through the park’s sand dunes and salt flats with a friend, who convinced her to tell park administrators what happened. She went to the park’s chief ranger and described the incident in detail. He jotted down notes and told her that she had a choice: She could either press charges, or let the park handle it internally.
> 
> Unaware that there was a formal complaint process, Olivia said that the park could handle it, and left. Two days later, her supervisor, her alleged assailant’s supervisor and the park’s chief of interpretation—another high-level employee—asked her to recount the incident for the third time. Afterwards, the chief of interpretation told her they had talked to her alleged assailant. It was all just a “misunderstanding,” he said, and he would not move forward with her case.
> 
> The park did agree to transfer the man to another dorm, but it took nearly a week for supervisors to act, and on the day he was supposed to leave, she found him in the dorm kitchen, eating cereal. She thought she would collapse. When he finally did move, it was to the dorm across the parking lot.
> 
> Days later, according to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request, Olivia’s supervisor emailed the chief of interpretation to tell him another intern had concerns about the same young man. He responded: “Thanks for ... trying to keep the rumors from really taking off. I’m glad to hear [Olivia] is getting back into a better frame of mind, but I hope [she] is not creating an uncomfortable environment for [him] if it is not warranted. Something to watch out for.”





			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> An interesting article on the subject of sexual harassment on the US Parks Service:
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/park-service-harassment/510680/



Toronto cops assault fellow cop







http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2016/12/16/22690805.html


----------



## Journeyman

beachdown said:
			
		

> Lets not kid ourselves...this sort of behaviour happens here in Canada too.


          :stars:

You _do_  know that the "C" in the thread's title (Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF) means "Canadian," right?


----------



## beachdown

Yes...however, I was responding to the immediate post. Thanks for pointing that out though  



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> :stars:
> 
> You _do_  know that the "C" in the thread's title (Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF) means "Canadian," right?


----------



## armyvern

I'm going to say it:

THANK YOU to the *thousands of men * that I have worked with throughout my service in the RCN, the RCAF, SOF, Joint and the Cdn Army for treating me with nothing but dignity and respect.  And to my fellow women too.

Heads high gentlemen as I realize that I do not work each day with a bunch of sexual predators.  As with every segment of society, thoy would be the very rare (and never for me) exception and not the rule.

I'm not into tarring and feathering and entire ***insert whatever group here*** based on the actions of some assholes. Every ***insert group here*** has it's select group of assholes.


----------



## PMedMoe

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm going to say it:
> 
> THANK YOU to the *thousands of men *that I have worked with throughout my service in the RCN, the RCAF, SOF, Joint and the Cdn Army for treating me with nothing but dignity and respect.  And to my fellow women too.
> 
> Heads high gentlemen as I realize that I do not work each day with a bunch of sexual predators.  As with every segment of society, thoy would be the very rare (and never for me) exception and not the rule.
> 
> I'm not into tarring and feathering and entire ***insert whatever group here*** based on the actions of some assholes. Every ***insert group here*** has it's select group of assholes.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Jarnhamar

beachdown said:
			
		

> Lets not kid ourselves...this sort of behaviour happens here in Canada too. It's despicable that any human should be subjected to such an act...from the article


I would have figured the need to point out this happens in Canada too was moot considering the nature of this thread and the numerous posts and examples there in. 


I can't help but feel like you have a certain agenda to push.  Your contributions definitely seem to have a specific flavor.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm going to say it:
> 
> THANK YOU to the *thousands of men * that I have worked with throughout my service in the RCN, the RCAF, SOF, Joint and the Cdn Army for treating me with nothing but dignity and respect.  And to my fellow women too.
> 
> Heads high gentlemen as I realize that I do not work each day with a bunch of sexual predators.  As with every segment of society, thoy would be the very rare (and never for me) exception and not the rule.
> 
> I'm not into tarring and feathering and entire ***insert whatever group here*** based on the actions of some assholes. Every ***insert group here*** has it's select group of assholes.



Thank you Vern.

But be careful ... talk like that will not endear you to the Snowflakes:  [

http://savethesnowflakes.org/


----------



## armyvern

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Thank you Vern.
> 
> But be careful ... talk like that will not endear you to the Snowflakes:  [
> 
> http://savethesnowflakes.org/



I wouldn't consider a victim of sexual assault to be a snowflake.  I do personally know  a male and female victim of serious sexual assaults during my 28 year career. 

To be clear: I believe that a single sexual assault within the CAF of a team-mate upon a team-mate is one too many.  We are meant to protect the downtrodden and the weak.  How can we protect them if we can't protect our own?

We do it by dealing with those asshole swiftly, justly and permanently.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Amen, Vern. 

In the 90s, I watched in horror  as a CO got away with sexually assaulting a male from another unit. The CoC refused to take the allegations seriously. I watched another CoC I was more intimately involved with bungle a straight forward sexual assault summary trial (back in the days when COs could still sit those) to the point where despite a guilty verdict, the message was clear that the CoC really did not mean it.

We have come a million miles since then, despite what the critics say. I can think of no unit that I have served with in the past 10 years where anything like that would have occurred, much less tolerated if it did.


----------



## mariomike

beachdown said:
			
		

> Toronto cops assault fellow cop



Not that it makes the allegations any less serious, but it was a civilian member.


----------



## beachdown

OK, but like you said, a sexual assault is an assault regardless of if the victim works for the private or public sector.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Not that it makes the allegations any less serious, *but it was a civilian member*.


----------



## mariomike

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I believe that a single sexual assault within the CAF of a team-mate upon a team-mate is one too many.  We are meant to protect the downtrodden and the weak.  How can we protect them if we can't protect our own?



 :goodpost:




			
				beachdown said:
			
		

> OK, but like you said, a sexual assault is an assault regardless of if the victim works for the private or public sector.



I agree. But, I also believe members of our Emergency Services, and CAF, whether on or off duty, should be held to high standards.


----------



## beachdown

It really is simple...before a person does something stupid wrt the opposite sex (co-worker / stranger) and bordering on sexual no-no, just think of how you will feel if a stranger did the same to your partner / mbr of your family.


----------



## mariomike

beachdown said:
			
		

> It really is simple...before a person does something stupid wrt the opposite sex (co-worker / stranger) and bordering on sexual no-no, just think of how you will feel if a stranger did the same to your partner / mbr of your family.



Or the same sex.


----------



## Remius

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm going to say it:
> 
> THANK YOU to the *thousands of men * that I have worked with throughout my service in the RCN, the RCAF, SOF, Joint and the Cdn Army for treating me with nothing but dignity and respect.  And to my fellow women too.



I understand the message being conveyed.  But I don't think anyone should have to thank anyone for that.   It should be the norm and the standard.  It should be expected if not demanded.  You shouldn't have to thank anyone for that.


----------



## George Wallace

beachdown said:
			
		

> It really is simple...before a person does something stupid wrt the opposite sex (co-worker / stranger) and bordering on sexual no-no, just think of how you will feel if a stranger did the same to your partner / mbr of your family.



As we are not all clones, nor using mind melds, etc.; and as we are all individuals, there are no guarantees that two people anywhere, at any time, will think the same and have the same feelings or reactions to an action taken by another.  ENTER the PC CROWD and you will see that we live in a special time where everyone seems to be offended at the pettiest of things.


----------



## armyvern

Remius said:
			
		

> I understand the message being conveyed.  But I don't think anyone should have to thank anyone for that.   It should be the norm and the standard.  It should be expected if not demanded.  You shouldn't have to thank anyone for that.



And in normal times I would agree with you. But, seems to me that, particularly in this thread, there a a couple who are  keen to broad-brush and tar a whole group as if this were 'the norm' for behaviour just as the media has taken to doing. Holding ONLY those to account for doing wrong should also be the norm and expectation, but it sure isn't these days.

I say again, "THANK YOU" to the thousands if more than honorable men whom I have had the pleasure and priveledge to work with over the years.

THEY deserve that thanks because they sure seem to be lacking it lately .  Broad brushes and generalizations are not acceptable.


----------



## mariomike

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ENTER the PC CROWD and you will see that we live in a special time where everyone seems to be offended at the pettiest of things.



I wonder if some hyper-sensitive types actually _enjoy_  being OUTRAGED? 
Get a sort of "rush" from it? Like they're addicted to it. Same way some are addicted to coffee or tobacco. 
Do some love that feeling of self-righteous moral indignation? 

Maybe if people were as offended by things like homelessness as they are about some other things society would be further ahead? :soapbox:


----------



## beachdown

...I concur 



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Or the same sex.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

mariomike said:
			
		

> Or the same sex.



I can't even count the number of times any more... being on training and _ certain_ infantry regiments hosted their Regimental parties.

I've never seen more phalluses or heard more requests of "show us your dick!" In a single night.

It doesn't happen quite as much anymore.


----------



## mariomike

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> _ certain_ infantry regiments hosted their Regimental parties.



In the mess, do they still say, "Show us you're regimental!" ?  :cheers:

Edit to add,

Dec 16, 2016 

Soldier sentenced to six years in child porn case
http://www.680news.com/2016/12/16/soldier-sentenced-six-years-child-porn-case/
A Canadian Armed Forces sergeant based at CFB Trenton in eastern Ontario has been sentenced to six years in prison for child pornography offences and arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's being delivered as "cascade training".  Senior commanders get it from higher commanders who then "cascade" (deliver) it to the next level of subordinates.  Repeat the process until it gets down to the soldier/sailor/aviator level.


And here's a little more about the bystander training via the Army's info-machine:


> *Canadian Army using Bystander Training from TED Talk in support of Operation Honour*
> Article / December 12, 2016
> By: 2Lt Aaron Stryd
> 
> The Canadian Army is providing training to all personnel on the bystander approach to the prevention of Harmful and Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour (HISB). The aim of the training is to promote a culture of respect and vigilance within the Canadian Armed Forces which reinforces ethical conduct and prevents abusive behaviour.
> 
> The bystander approach was developed by Jackson Katz, founder of the Mentors in Violence Prevention Program and has been taught in organizations such as the United States Marine Corps, New England Patriots, and NASCAR.
> 
> Bystander training recognizes that many perpetrators of abusive behaviour are normal people who have been influenced by a culture that accepts, and sometimes promotes, those behaviours. People who are not a perpetrator or victim of abuse frequently remain silent for fear of impacting their career, relationships, or because they feel it isn’t their business. But when bystanders remain silent it promotes a culture which accepts abusive behaviour and allows it to continue.
> 
> Katz believes that it is a leadership issue.   “"I run a leadership program, "”  he said during a TED talk in 2012.  “"It can be hard to speak up, "”  he acknowledges, it takes people  “"with the guts, with the courage, with the strength with the moral integrity to break our complicit silence."”
> 
> The Canadian Army’s bystander training reinforces that all Canadian Armed Forces members are leaders in creating a safe and respectful workplace, and that we all have an obligation to speak out.
> 
> “ "I am committed to the termination of HISB in the Canadian Army, "”  said LGen Wynnyk, Commander of the Canadian Army.   “ "Every soldier and every officer needs to be ready and effective bystanders at all levels of the Canadian Army’s chain of command.  If you see it, hear it or feel it: do the right thing and report it."”
> 
> The training is being delivered through the chain of command. Training is underway with expected completion by January 2017.
> 
> To learn more, watch Jackson Katz’s TED talk at: https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue?language=en


----------



## Jarnhamar

> The training is being delivered through the chain of command. Training is underway with expected completion by January 2017.



A good way to make people take this training less seriously is to try and force everyone to complete it before block Christmas leave.

2 hour sessions with power point slideshows become 25 minute chats just so everyone can get the check in the box.  Important training becomes just another pre-leave unit brief.


----------



## Remius

Looks like the CANFORGEN on releasing members found guilty of sexual misconduct is out. 

NOIs are to be issued to any member found guilty of sexual misconduct either by summary trial, court martial or civilian court.  Looks like it only encompasses everything that occurred after after Jan 1st 2016.


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A good way to make people take this training less seriously is to try and force everyone to complete it before block Christmas leave.
> 
> 2 hour sessions with power point slideshows become 25 minute chats just so everyone can get the check in the box.  Important training becomes just another pre-leave unit brief.



"expected completion by January 2017."

We still haven't heard squat about it in NAVRES.

If anyone reading this in a senior navy position in Ottawa, what gives?


----------



## ballz

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A good way to make people take this training less seriously is to try and force everyone to complete it before block Christmas leave.
> 
> 2 hour sessions with power point slideshows become 25 minute chats just so everyone can get the check in the box.  Important training becomes just another pre-leave unit brief.



You can measure how important something is to leadership by how much time (aka resources) they actually allocate for it.


----------



## dapaterson

Lumber said:
			
		

> "expected completion by January 2017."
> 
> We still haven't heard squat about it in NAVRES.
> 
> If anyone reading this in a senior navy position in Ottawa, what gives?



The Army has directed all pers complete the training.  It is not (at this point) CAF direction.

The briefing material is all available on a DWAN website; if you want to get ahead of the power curve, download it, review it, and start coming up with ideas for delivering the training - so when the inevitable "Oh, get this done by 31 March" email arrives in mid-January, you can provide your boss with options.


----------



## armyvern

Lumber said:
			
		

> "expected completion by January 2017."
> 
> We still haven't heard squat about it in NAVRES.
> 
> If anyone reading this in a senior navy position in Ottawa, what gives?



What part about the headline did you miss?

ARMY ... ARMY ... ARMY

The Canadian ARMY picked up this trg from the US and is running with it.


----------



## Lumber

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What part about the headline did you miss?
> 
> ARMY ... ARMY ... ARMY
> 
> The Canadian ARMY picked up this trg from the US and is running with it.




Ahem..

From the Annex A to the CDS' FRAGO 002 to CDS OP ORDER - Operation Honour



> 3. Collective Tasks
> 
> a. Phase Three
> 
> (6) Ensure all Command Teams are provided information and/or training on how to conduct Bystander Intervention Training within their units



This is not ARMY specific training.

Yes, the ARMY took an already designed training tool and ran with it. I just don't understand how we're already past the Army's "completed by" date without having heard a word about it in the Navy.


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The briefing material is all available on a DWAN website; if you want to get ahead of the power curve, download it, review it, and start coming up with ideas for delivering the training - so when the inevitable "Oh, get this done by 31 March" email arrives in mid-January February, you can provide your boss with options.


FTFY if your part of the feds is anything like what I've heard other parts of the feds can be like - on a good day.


----------



## armyvern

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ahem..
> 
> From the Annex A to the CDS' FRAGO 002 to CDS OP ORDER - Operation Honour
> 
> This is not ARMY specific training.
> 
> Yes, the ARMY took an already designed training tool and ran with it. I just don't understand how we're already past the Army's "completed by" date without having heard a word about it in the Navy.



The article, as per it's headline, is about the ARMY, and the ARMY has made it mandatory.

The other environments have not/have yet to make the Bystander Intervention Training MANDATORY for anyone but those few whom they wished to have act as intervenors (I'm at CJOC and it isn't mandatory for us either ... yet).  The ARMY has made that training mandatory for ALL members of the Canadian Army (apparently by 31 Jan 2017).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It's happening in (at least some) RCAF units as well.


----------



## armyvern

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's happening in (at least some) RCAF units as well.



Although it is not (yet?) mandatory in my command, my CO and I have discussed and decided that 100% of our pers will undertake the Bystander Training.  It is underway. The CO and I also both figure that, at some point after the holidays, we may receive a message from higher that directs 100% undertaken throughout command by end-FY.  And, this gives us a 3 month head-start for what we feel is sure to come because we are busy enough at end-FY already ...

Oh, and to the gentleman from this site who trained my pers last week:  "Thank you" and they stated you did an excellent job of it and made it relevant and interesting.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Is it recorded on MPRRs like the initial one was (shows up on my MM MPRR, not sure about the EMMA version)?


----------



## armyvern

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is it recorded on MPRRs like the initial one was (shows up on my MM MPRR, not sure about the EMMA version)?



I think I put the code in this thread somewhere already.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Rog, will take a look back, tks.


----------



## armyvern

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Rog, will take a look back, tks.



'Tis here:



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> IIRC, the qual code for the trg is 1818242; it should be added to the MPRRs of those who have completed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Merci!


----------



## Lumber

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Oh, and to the gentleman from this site who trained my pers last week:  "Thank you" and they stated you did an excellent job of it and made it relevant and interesting.




You're welcome?....


----------



## MJP

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Oh, and to the gentleman from this site who trained my pers last week:  "Thank you" and they stated you did an excellent job of it and made it relevant and interesting.



It was my pleasure!  As much as we bemoan additional training this is one crse I will gladly take, give or have soldiers attend and I fucking hate mandatory all means all training with a passion.

This is crse or presentation when given properly is mint.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MJP said:
			
		

> It was my pleasure!  As much as we bemoan additional training this is one crse I will gladly take, give or have soldiers attend and I ******* hate mandatory all means all training with a passion.
> 
> This is crse or presentation when given properly is mint.



I wonder if we can put videos of these presentations on a site of some kind for the use of other presenters, or others who want to peruse them for their own information?


----------



## dapaterson

Done effectively, it's precious little presentation and primarily people participating.


----------



## PuckChaser

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I wonder if we can put videos of these presentations on a site of some kind for the use of other presenters, or others who want to peruse them for their own information?



Here's the TED Talk that the training is based off of: https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Done effectively, it's precious little presentation and primarily people participating.



Just my point. We train presenters already. Facilitators? Not


----------



## Gunner98

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Here's the TED Talk that the training is based off of: https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue



This TED Talk is being touted a lot lately and quite frankly I did not find it very good. He is very emotional and invested but...much like the Bystander scenarios, is the best that can be offered in terms of setting standard?

University of Calgary has a program titled Respect in the Workplace:  http://respectintheworkplace.com/


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the info-machine:


> On January 9, 2017, pre-trial motions will begin for the general court martial of Ex-Petty Officer, 2nd Class James Wilks, a former Canadian Armed Forces medical technician, in relation to sexual assault and breach of trust charges.
> 
> When:
> 
> Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
> Pre-trial motions expected, January 9 – 13, 2017.
> General court martial expected to begin January 16, 2017.
> 
> Where: Asticou Centre, Bloc 2600, Room 2601, 241 Boulevard Cité-des-Jeunes, Gatineau (QC) ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

And the military justice system carries on, finding someone NOT guilty ...


> Yesterday (5 Jan 2017), Master Corporal Dustin Jackson was found not guilty by a standing court martial in Gatineau, Quebec.
> 
> The charges were related to an alleged sexual assault of a female member of the Canadian Armed Forces in Ottawa, Ontario in October, 2011, which was reported in January 2014.
> Quick Facts
> 
> Of the two charges which were preferred by the Director of Military Prosecutions on April 13, 2015, Military Judge, Lieutenant-Colonel Louis-Vincent d’Auteuil:
> 
> Found Master Corporal Jackson not guilty of one charge of sexual assault under section 130 of the National Defence Act (NDA) (section 271 Criminal Code of Canada).
> 
> Found Master Corporal Jackson not guilty of one charge of having behaved in a disgraceful manner under section 93 of the NDA.
> 
> The CAF takes all allegations of any form of sexual misconduct seriously and is committed to dealing with them as quickly as possible ...


----------



## Jarnhamar

> which was reported in January 2014.





> committed to dealing with them as quickly as possible



Is 3 years an average time for sexual assault cases to go to trial in the CF?


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the info-machine:


> On January 9, 2017, pre-trial motions began for the general court martial of Ex-Petty Officer, 2nd Class James Wilks, a former Canadian Armed Forces medical technician. He is being tried on eight charges with respect to six complainants; seven charges of breach of trust by a public officer and one for sexual assault.
> 
> A mandatory publication ban has already been ordered in respect of the complainant in the sexual assault allegation. The prosecution will also be seeking publication bans on the names and other information that could identify the five other complainants. These bans are being sought in order to protect the privacy of the complainants. The application for these further bans will be made on January 12, 2017 or as soon after as the court can accommodate.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More from the info machine:


> On January 9, 2017, pre-trial motions began for the general court martial of Ex-Petty Officer, 2nd Class James Wilks, a former Canadian Armed Forces medical technician. He is currently being tried on eight charges with respect to six complainants. Of these eight charges, seven are for breach of trust by a public officer, and one is for sexual assault.
> 
> On January 9 and 12, 2017, the Prosecution requested a publication ban on the names of the six complainants, which was granted by the Chief Military Judge. The prosecution will also be seeking a redaction order to keep the complainants medical information private, as it would otherwise be publicly available. The redaction order application will be made on or around January 23, 2017, depending on the court’s ability to accommodate this request ...


----------



## Lightguns

The latest one in Shilo was 10 months from incident to charge.  Likely another year before trial.


----------



## TCM621

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> This TED Talk is being touted a lot lately and quite frankly I did not find it very good. He is very emotional and invested but...much like the Bystander scenarios, is the best that can be offered in terms of setting standard?
> 
> University of Calgary has a program titled Respect in the Workplace:  http://respectintheworkplace.com/


It makes me angry. I recently took the "respect in the CAF" course and we watch this video. While any message he had may have been good,  it is lost in the first 10 minutes with his self congratulatory , pro feminist, anti male tirade. His work maybe good but he is a terrible presenter and this is a Tedx talk for a women's empowerment group which may have tainted his message a lot. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## mariomike

Apr 27, 2017 

OTTAWA – A former officer stationed at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt in British Columbia has been charged with sexual assault.

National Defence says in a news release that the assault was alleged to have occurred against another military employee in 2010.
http://www.680news.com/2017/04/27/former-military-officer-charged-with-sexual-assault-in-british-columbia/

Apr 28, 2017 

Forces say they want to oust 77 members for sexual misconduct
http://www.680news.com/2017/04/28/forces-say-want-oust-77-members-sexual-misconduct/
Officials also say military police plan to review more than 150 old cases of sexual misconduct reported between 2010 and 2016 but deemed unfounded.
That includes having experts from outside the military, including social workers and others, look at the files and meet victims.


----------



## McG

In the news now, LCol Stalker is suing the NIS.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-officer-taking-legal-action-against-dnd-over-sex-assault-investigation-1.3400629


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Not drawing conclusions one way or another but I'm glad he beat it and I hope he wins his lawsuit against DND and NIS.


----------



## Jarnhamar

That's a double edged sword. More than happy to see guilty members kicked out as I'm sure a number of them have escaped justice so far. That said I can only hope innocent members don't get wrongly punted.


----------



## putz

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not drawing conclusions one way or another but I'm glad he beat it and I hope he wins his lawsuit against DND and NIS.



It is a huge leap befween charges withdrawn and "beating charges"


----------



## Infanteer

One could also say it is a huge leap between "charged with" and "found guilty of."


----------



## Fishbone Jones

putz said:
			
		

> It is a huge leap befween charges withdrawn and "beating charges"



Having been charged so many times I can't count them, I'm well aware of the difference.

I was simply wishing him well.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's a double edged sword. More than happy to see guilty members kicked out as I'm sure a number of them have escaped justice so far. That said I can only hope innocent members don't get wrongly punted.



Yup, these things usually turn into " we must find evil even if it's not there"  so they can drag out their employment longer.


----------



## Journeyman

Ah yes, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Because nothing says "witch hunt" like bringing in outside "experts" to look at closed, unfounded files... and meet _alleged_  victims. 

(yes, 680 News, you missed that word "alleged")  :not-again:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ah yes, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
> 
> Because nothing says "witch hunt" like bringing in outside "experts" to look at closed, unfounded files... and meet _alleged_  victims.
> 
> (yes, 680 News, you missed that word "alleged")  :not-again:



Since when do social workers get to look at police investigations?


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Since when do social workers get to look at police investigations?



Since conducting an external review.


----------



## Gunner98

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Since when do social workers get to look at police investigations?



More often than you would think!  Child abuse, domestic abuse, rape crisis teams and hospital support teams normally consist of police and social worker partnership. http://wawg.ca/system/assets/attachments/000/000/173/original/Sexual_Assault_Protocol_Final_June_2014.pdf
http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CommunityPolicing/FamilyProtection/ChildProtection/CARRT.aspx


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Since conducting an external review.



An external review would be having the RCMP/OPP/TPS/OPS/etc... Come look at the files they investigated.

This is the NIS reopening files they already investigated (guess they didn't do a good job the first time) and then letting non law enforcement types look at all their investigative work, as if those non law-enforcement types have any expertise in investigations.  An I missing something here?   :dunno:



			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> More often than you would think!  Child abuse, domestic abuse, rape crisis teams and hospital support teams normally consist of police and social worker partnership. http://wawg.ca/system/assets/attachments/000/000/173/original/Sexual_Assault_Protocol_Final_June_2014.pdf
> http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CommunityPolicing/FamilyProtection/ChildProtection/CARRT.aspx



Thanks Simian, 

I'm aware of the role hospitals and health professionals play but they don't conduct investigations, that's a law enforcement responsibility.


----------



## Gunner98

HB,

Non-law enforcement types have experience in lots of investigations - sex misconduct assault/abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse.  Their investigations result in child custody hearings, restraining orders, etc.  So I think the experienced non-law enforcement types have some good investigative skills.  They would not be looking at police misconduct in the cases, they are looking at the evidence of sex assault/misconduct.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> HB,
> 
> Non-law enforcement types have experience in lots of investigations - sex misconduct assault/abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse.  Their investigations result in child custody hearings, restraining orders, etc.  So I think the experienced non-law enforcement types have some good investigative skills.  They would not be looking at police misconduct in the cases, they are looking at the evidence of sex assault/misconduct.



Part in yellow, two very different things.  One is a criminal act, the other is a cultural perception.  The words should not be used interchangeably, even though it has become the modus operandi over the past few years.


----------



## Journeyman

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> They would not be looking at police misconduct in the cases, they are looking at the evidence of sex assault/misconduct.


Sorry, but I have heartache with this.  Bringing in non-police people to go through already conducted criminal allegations deemed 'unfounded' says two things:

1)  NIS investigative skills _are_  lacking;  and/or

2)  We're going to bring in whoever we want, for as long as it takes, to find "the answer" we need to appease the Toronto Star, _et al_.

Both of which are troubling.


----------



## ModlrMike

What happens then when someone exonerated by the police, gets found guilty by the consultants?


----------



## JesseWZ

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What happens then when someone exonerated by the police, gets found guilty by the consultants?



That's a complicated question, but not necessarily the right one. As we've discovered with other agencies, *some* of the unfounded allegations are most likely a clerical error when we conclude our files. Unfounded was used a lot when _not enough evidence existed to charge someone_. On the face of it, if there isn't enough evidence for an arrest or charges to proceed, doesn't make it unfounded. I'm sure the review will find one of several things:

1) unfounded was mistakenly applied (it's literally a drop down box where you tick off a letter to indicate the status and that box is what is used to generate stats) and it's actually founded but not enough evidence was uncovered to support charges;

2) it actually was unfounded (completely unfounded cases are pretty rare - typically evidence would be uncovered of some sort of maliciousness on the part of the complainant); and

3) some files marked unfounded may need to be re-opened as further investigative steps or new policing procedures or techniques may benefit the case. If that's the case, I imagine the case would be re-opened by the agency of jurisdiction (almost certainly the CFNIS) and they would evaluate the (new- if any) evidence and decide whether they've met the reasonable grounds to believe standard to move forward. 

Crown counsel has a higher threshold to prove however - and at least here in BC could decline to approve charges (it's pre-charge approval in BC folks, for those that know what I'm talking about) for one of the following reasons:

a) no reasonable prospect of conviction; and

b) no public interest in pursuing charges. 

A lot of police files with substantial evidence don't make it past reason (a). 

*So I think the question you should be asking Mike is: "What happens when the consultants uncover an investigation that was incomplete or subject to the techniques of the time and now evidence has been uncovered that could (much later down the road) lead to a conviction"?  *


----------



## TCM621

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> That's a complicated question, but not necessarily the right one. As we've discovered with other agencies, *some* of the unfounded allegations are most likely a clerical error when we conclude our files. Unfounded was used a lot when _not enough evidence existed to charge someone_. On the face of it, if there isn't enough evidence for an arrest or charges to proceed, doesn't make it unfounded. I'm sure the review will find one of several things:
> 
> 1) unfounded was mistakenly applied (it's literally a drop down box where you tick off a letter to indicate the status and that box is what is used to generate stats) and it's actually founded but not enough evidence was uncovered to support charges;
> 
> 2) it actually was unfounded (completely unfounded cases are pretty rare - typically evidence would be uncovered of some sort of maliciousness on the part of the complainant); and
> 
> 3) some files marked unfounded may need to be re-opened as further investigative steps or new policing procedures or techniques may benefit the case. If that's the case, I imagine the case would be re-opened by the agency of jurisdiction (almost certainly the CFNIS) and they would evaluate the (new- if any) evidence and decide whether they've met the reasonable grounds to believe standard to move forward.
> 
> Crown counsel has a higher threshold to prove however - and at least here in BC could decline to approve charges (it's pre-charge approval in BC folks, for those that know what I'm talking about) for one of the following reasons:
> 
> a) no reasonable prospect of conviction; and
> 
> b) no public interest in pursuing charges.
> 
> A lot of police files with substantial evidence don't make it past reason (a).
> 
> *So I think the question you should be asking Mike is: "What happens when the consultants uncover an investigation that was incomplete or subject to the techniques of the time and now evidence has been uncovered that could (much later down the road) lead to a conviction"?  *


How far back are we going? While rape has always been rape, an infantry Sgt in 1985 would have a much different understanding of acceptable behaviour than a social worker from 2017.  I remember taking SHARP circa 1998 and realizing what I thought was normal at the time was considered harassment. I thought it was just how the infantry was because it was completely normal from my frame of reference. A lot has changed since those days. I haven't had a drill cane swung in my direction in decades. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## JesseWZ

While there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault, investigations have to use the legal standard of the time. For example, an incident that took place in 1985, would need to use the 1985 Criminal Code as a benchmark. It's also important to note, if it's a CFNIS investigation, it's typically not a "sexual harassment" issue but a sexual assault/abuse issue. Harassment is still dealt with at the local unit level or if it involves Criminal harassment, by the applicable police service of jurisdiction.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Here we go again.



> Canadian soldier in custody after secret recording device found in U.S. home
> 
> A Canadian Forces corporal who had been assigned to the Canadian embassy in Washington is facing charges of sexual assault and possession of child pornography after a covert recording device was discovered in the home of another Canadian military member serving in the U.S.
> 
> 
> A military police spokesman said Friday the soldier is in custody in Gagetown, NB.
> 
> The recording device was discovered in the Washington-area home of a Canadian Forces member in January. That, in turn, led to an investigation that has resulted to numerous charges.
> 
> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service charged Cpl. Colin McGregor on Wednesday. He faces charges of sexual assault, voyeurism, interception, breaking and entering, as well as possession of property obtained by crime, theft, transmission of an intimate image, possession of a device for surreptitious interception, and possession of child pornography.
> 
> The charges have not been proven in court.
> 
> McGregor is currently working at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown, NB.
> 
> McGregor, who is with the Canadian Army, had been a resource management support clerk with Canadian Defence Liaison Staff in Washington, DC.
> 
> After the discovery of the covert recording device, officers with the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, with the assistance of local police, searched McGregor’s home in the U.S. and seized several electronic devices, said Navy Lt. Blake Patterson, a spokesman for Canadian military police. Recordings found on these devices included video of an alleged sexual assault against a member of the Canadian military at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, BC in 2011.
> 
> In May 2016 McGregor was selected with other military personnel to represent the Canadian Forces in the U.S. Memorial Day Parade. He also served at least one tour in Afghanistan.
> 
> McGregor faces a possible court martial at a date and location still to be determined.
> 
> He is currently in custody in Gagetown, Patterson said.
> 
> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is not providing details about the gender of the alleged victims, other than to say they are adults.
> 
> The Canadian Defence Liaison Staff are located at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. Their mission is to promote successful Canada-US defence relations.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canadian-soldier-in-custody-after-secret-recording-device-found-in-us-home/ar-BBB5Zdn?li=AAggv0m&ocid=iehp


----------



## The Bread Guy

_*Reminder:  The Charter says all are presumed innocent until proven guilty "according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal" - none of this proven in court at this point*_​
And the info-machine's version ...


> On May 10, 2017, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged a member of the Canadian Armed Forces with sexual assault, voyeurism and related offences under the Criminal Code of Canada.
> 
> The charges stem from the discovery in January 2017 of a recording device at the private residence of a Canadian Armed Forces member near Washington, D.C.
> 
> The accused, at that time, was a resource management support clerk with Canadian Defence Liaison Staff (Washington). CFNIS investigators, with the assistance of local police, searched the home of the accused and seized several electronic devices. Recordings found on these devices included video of a sexual assault against a Canadian Armed Forces member at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt in 2011.
> 
> Corporal Colin McGregor, now based at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown, New Brunswick, faces multiple charges under the Criminal Code of Canada, punishable under section 130 of the National Defence Act. Charges include sexual assault, voyeurism, interception, and breaking and entering, as well as possession of property obtained by crime, theft, transmission of intimate image, possession of a device for surreptitious interception, and possession of child pornography.
> 
> The matter is now proceeding in accordance with the military justice system for possible court martial at a date and location still to be determined.
> 
> Anyone who has knowledge related to this investigation is asked to contact the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service at: 1-888-812-3647.


----------



## kratz

from CTV.ca:



> Wilks sentenced for sexual assault, breach of trust
> CTV London
> Published Thursday, May 25, 2017 4:55PM EDT
> Last Updated Thursday, May 25, 2017 6:02PM EDT
> 
> 
> A former military medic has been sentenced to nine months for sexual assault and three counts of breach of trust, stemming from incidents in London and Windsor.
> 
> James Wilks, 57, was sentenced by court martial Thursday in London.
> 
> Wilks was found guilty in February of one count of sexual assault and 15 counts of breach of trust for conducting inappropriate breast exams at several Ontario military recruiting centres.
> 
> Wilks, a petty officer second class who is now retired, was found not guilty on four other counts of breach of trust.
> 
> Wilks lost his appeal last Friday of 2013 convictions of 10 sexual assault and 15 breach counts. He was sentenced to 30 months on that conviction. His nine-month sentence will be served concurrently with his 30 months.
> 
> Wilks, whose job mainly involved the medical screening of military recruits had complaints against him filed by women in Thunder Bay, London and Windsor.
> 
> From 1984 until early 2011, Wilks worked as a medical assistant and medical technician at Canadian Forces recruiting centres.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest from the CDS:


> General Jonathan H. Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, issued the following statement:
> 
> On May 9, 2017, I accepted the board of inquiry (BOI) report regarding Master Corporal (retired) Stéphanie Raymond. The Commander of the Canadian Army convened this BOI in January 2015 to investigate irregularities identified by my predecessor surrounding the determination of her grievances.
> 
> Today Colonel Josée Robidoux, Commander 35 Canadian Brigade Group, briefed Master Corporal (retired) Raymond on the report and its related issues, including:
> 
> The institutional inability to grasp the profound impact of the events of 15 December 2011 on Master Corporal (retired) Raymond
> The failure to apply basic leadership principles in administering Master Corporal (retired) Raymond’s harassment complaint, including a lack of communication with her throughout the process and the absence of follow-up to ensure her well-being
> The recommendations of the BOI
> An overview of the Canadian Armed Forces’ action plan to implement the report’s recommendations
> 
> Many of the recommendations found in the report have already been implemented through Operation HONOUR, which is our commitment to eliminating harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces. Through a comprehensive action plan stemming from the BOI recommendations, I have ordered the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, the Commander Canadian Army and the Commander of Military Personnel Command to implement the recommendations as soon as possible.
> 
> Harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour is unacceptable and undermines our operational effectiveness. I will do everything in my power to change our culture so our people can operate in an environment that espouses the values we carry as members of the profession of arms.
> 
> I want to thank Master Corporal (retired) Raymond for having the courage and tenacity to identify a series of failures by her chain of command, which were indicative of larger systemic issues. Because of the concerns she raised, we are now better aware of how tremendous an impact harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour has on our people and we are taking decisive steps to ensure this type of situation does not reoccur. Her case is one of the reasons why Operation HONOUR exists and why I’m so dedicated to its purpose.
> 
> - 30 -​


More details in attached backgrounder/action plan.


----------



## dapaterson

Multiple sources are reporting LCol Stephan Popowych has been charged with sexual assault.  "The charge is in connection with a reported sexual assault against a civilian in Kingston in the fall of 1999, when the accused was a student at the Royal Military College."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/canadian-forces-officer-sexual-assault-1.4138269

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/national-defense-staff-officer-in-ottawa-facing-sex-assault-charge-1.3436091

http://www.quintenews.com/2017/05/military-officer-charged-sex-assault-studying-rmc/148738/

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/05/sexual_assault_chargelaidagainstofficerinottawa.html


----------



## dapaterson

A military inquiry has determined there was a failure of "basic leadership" in how the army handled a high-profile case of alleged sexual assault and harassment.

The internal investigation, released Tuesday, has made 25 recommendations for change. But the woman at the centre of the investigation says she doesn't believe the military is any safer for women than it was a few years ago.

Retired master corporal Stéphanie Raymond, who alleged she was raped by a superior and then drummed out of the army in 2013 for reporting it, was briefed on board of inquiry's findings.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-inquiry-report-1.4137854


----------



## putz

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/former-military-officer-says-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-military-physician-1.3500640



> A former Canadian Forces officer is frustrated with delays in the military justice system after she alleges she was sexually and physically assaulted by a military doctor. Twenty-one months after the allegations were brought forward, the physician continues to work within the military and the case still hasn’t reached trial.
> The accuser, whom CTV News has agreed to not identify, says she was sexually assaulted after a work related event at a hotel in February 2015 by a Canadian Forces Captain who is a practising military physician. The alleged victim says the doctor harassed her for weeks after and physically assaulted her.
> She is now speaking out over frustration with the military justice system and personal concerns about the doctor’s practice at a Manitoba military base.


----------



## OldSolduer

That narrows it down. 

Does the Supreme Court ruling about the accused' right to a trial within a reasonable time apply here? FJAG needs to weigh in here.


----------



## JesseWZ

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> That narrows it down.
> 
> Does the Supreme Court ruling about the accused' right to a trial within a reasonable time apply here? FJAG needs to weigh in here.



Yes. Supreme Court Rulings apply to Courts Martial, however I'm not sure the ceiling has been reached or whether a defence delay application has been advanced. There is case law out there somewhere that defence is supposed to make their delay applications as early as they can in the process, so we'll see....


----------



## Lightguns

Jesus, Shilo again!!!  What is wrong with that base, the water, the air, what?  Including animals that the 7th or 8th sexual assault.


----------



## FJAG

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> That narrows it down.
> 
> Does the Supreme Court ruling about the accused' right to a trial within a reasonable time apply here? FJAG needs to weigh in here.



They definitely do apply.

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> That narrows it down.
> 
> Does the Supreme Court ruling about the accused' right to a trial within a reasonable time apply here? FJAG needs to weigh in here.



I caught that too. He was charged 20 July, 2016 so they're coming on a year. The Jordan decision gives them 18 months to get this trial done, with delays form the defense not contributing to the time elapsed. Six months is not a lot of time in the criminal justice system.


----------



## PuckChaser

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Jesus, Shilo again!!!  What is wrong with that base, the water, the air, what?  Including animals that the 7th or 8th sexual assault.



Remember this is an alleged sexual assault. All we have to go on is one side of the story through the media. The accused hasn't had his day in court to answer the charges.


----------



## dapaterson

Other than his summary trial before the superior commander...


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Other than his summary trial before the superior commander...



I presume you mean the appearance before the superior commander to have a determination of jurisdiction made and an election for court martial made (if available). 

Technically that's not a "summary trial" but a "pre-trial procedure" within a "summary proceeding". The "summary trial" would only start subsequently if the superior commander has jurisdiction and the case is one where the individual has elected not to proceed by court martial or is one of the offences where no election to CM is available.

Sorry. Sometimes I get a little anal about these things.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

News reports say he was fined 500 for a bail violation at summary trial.  As a Capt, that could only be done by his superior commander.

Please forgive me for out analling a lawyer


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> News reports say he was fined 500 for a bail violation at summary trial.  As a Capt, that could only be done by his superior commander.
> 
> Please forgive me for out analling a lawyer



I'm not that familiar with his case and didn't know about the bail issue; BUT, if he was fined for a bail violation, then that would be a separate matter than standing trial for the sexual assault and therefore PuckChasers admonition that "the accused hasn't had his day in court to answer the charges" was both correct and proper.

I therefore reject your "out analling" and stand by mine.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## putz

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm not that familiar with his case and didn't know about the bail issue; BUT, if he was fined for a bail violation, then that would be a separate matter than standing trial for the sexual assault and therefore PuckChasers admonition that "the accused hasn't had his day in court to answer the charges" was both correct and proper.
> 
> I therefore reject your "out analling" and stand by mine.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



IMHO he got more at the summary level for the breech then he would have standing before a military judge for the breech.  I have seen it before where someone, facing similar charges, breeched multiple times (x5), appeared before a Military Judge (where it wasn't deemed that he should be held in custody turns--- out that breeches in the NDA are handled differently than civilian court surprise surprise) and then had all charges relating to the breechs dismissed at court martial.  To be fair though he did get 4 plus years in jail so there was that......


----------



## FJAG

putz said:
			
		

> IMHO he got more at the summary level for the breech then he would have standing before a military judge for the breech.  I have seen it before where someone, facing similar charges, breeched multiple times (x5), appeared before a Military Judge (where it wasn't deemed that he should be held in custody turns--- out that breeches in the NDA are handled differently than civilian court surprise surprise) and then had all charges relating to the breechs dismissed at court martial.  To be fair though he did get 4 plus years in jail so there was that......



The civilian and military courts do handle them very differently.

In both cases an application for revocation of bail is very different from a charge for an offence based on whatever the act that breached the bail condition was.

Back many years ago, just after we pulled our troops out of Germany but before the base was fully shut down I was assigned to prosecute DND's first bail revocation application for an individual who was found guilty of a sexual offence on a minor and who was released on bail pending appeal and who, while on bail, was found in possession of drugs on two occasions.

In civilian courts the revocation application is a pretty straight forward summary proceeding that rarely takes more than fifteen minutes but under section 4 to QR&O 118 of the QR&Os, the crown's application to "cancel the direction for release for a breach of undertaking" shall be conducted as a court martial with all the applicable procedures etc available.

In my particular case we had set aside five days for the hearing in Germany but had to first contend with four days of pleas in bar of trial by the defence to find the whole process unconstitutional. They lost but we wasted time and I was barely able to get in as witnesses the two German customs officers who caught our boy at the border with hash coming back from Switzerland. We ended up having to finish off the hearing in Ottawa for four days (because by them most of my witnesses [except the US Army's drug analyst] and the accused had returned to Canada) 

The one major difference between this hearing and a court martial was/is that the accused need only be found to have breached his undertaking on a preponderance of evidence (rather than beyond a reasonable doubt). When our guy's bail was revoked, he pulled his appeal and served out his time.

Again, I'm not familiar with the Shilo case. QR&O 118 applies to bail after a conviction by a court martial which I would think is obviously not the case here. There are provisions relating to pre-trial release from custody with or without conditions (QR&O 105) but again, those are procedural steps which are quite different from a new charge being laid for whatever the event that was considered the breach of condition was. Since there appeared to be a fine, there had to be a whole new charge.

 :cheers:


----------



## putz

I'm just hoping that the review of the Military law/NDA that's being conducted can help correct situations like this and move more towards how civilian courts operate.


----------



## FJAG

putz said:
			
		

> I'm just hoping that the review of the Military law/NDA that's being conducted can help correct situations like this and move more towards how civilian courts operate.



That's actually harder to do then it sounds.

Civilian courts - specifically the Superior Courts/Courts of Queen's Bench are what are called courts of inherent jurisdiction which means that they have the jurisdiction to deal with any matter brought before them unless the matter is specifically excluded by legislation. They basically inherit the common law jurisdictions of the British courts from before confederation. 

Courts Martial, on the other hand, are inferior courts or courts of limited jurisdiction. These courts have no inherent powers and can only do what is specifically allowed for them to do by legislation. In fact the court does not exist from day to day the way that the superior courts do (although the judges and staff are there full time). A court only comes into existence when it is "convened" which you might remember used to be when a general officer who was a convening authority gave an order convening it. This reaches back to the day when serving officers headed by a president of the court (sometimes assisted by a judge advocate) made all the rulings on both law and fact. There are some powers where a military judge has powers without there being a convening order such as an NDA s 159 custody review show cause hearing.

Things have changed significantly but still, every time that we want to work more like civilian courts, we need legislation to make that possible. Legislative changes come very slowly both because the military is a very conservative type of organization which doesn't rush into change and also because parliament is very slow to allocate time for NDA related matters; we're a low priority unless we're embarrassing the government when suddenly things speed up. The Somalia affair allowed DND to ram through much legislation which had been in limbo for a decade or more.

 :cheers:


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG I enjoy your posts. Keep it up! 

And I said this to a lawyer????

Cheers!


----------



## FJAG

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> FJAG I enjoy your posts. Keep it up!
> 
> And I said this to a lawyer????
> 
> Cheers!



There's a saying in legal circles: everybody hates lawyers in general but likes their own lawyer.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike

Oct 06, 2017 

2 military members charged with sexually assaulting other personnel
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/two-armed-forces-members-charged-with-sexual-assault-1.4343319

Separate incidents allegedly happened in New Brunswick this summer and in Halifax in 2014


----------



## Halifax Tar

*DND sex assault conviction rate lower than civilian courts*

Military prosecutor says offenders being held to account on lesser charges would send an important message

Over the last three years, slightly less than one quarter of sexual assault trials prosecuted by the Canadian military justice system have resulted in a guilty verdict, according to statistics compiled by CBC News.

More often than not, the alleged offenders have pleaded to, or been found guilty of, the lesser charge of disgraceful conduct.

That has raised concern among complainants and lawyers, particularly since the conviction rate is well below that of the civilian justice system.

But the director of military prosecutions said counting the number of guilty or not-guilty verdicts is not an accurate reflection of the effectiveness of the system.

"The rate of conviction isn't a measure of success in any prosecution service, whether it's a military prosecution service or a civilian criminal justice system across the country," said Col. Bruce MacGregor in an interview with CBC News. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sex-assault-conviction-rate-1.4360847

More on link.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Not a really well written article.


----------



## FJAG

The problem with this article is that it tries to create an issue that the military is not treating sexual assault cases significantly enough by virtue of the fact that the conviction rate is lower than in the civilian courts.

The problem with this argument is that the there were only 17 courts martial for sexual assault in the military within the last three years. That is far too few cases to  provided a statistically meaningful sample. Effectively as few as one more conviction a year would have brought DND to the national average.

The second problem is that there are far too many advocates that are of the view that if charges are laid then a conviction should automatically follow. Sexual assault cases are much more complex then that. When one deals with a stabbing or a shooting, then the requisite elements of the offence are fairly easily indicative of the fact that a crime was most probably committed. With a sexual assault there are the ever present complications that the act probably took place in a haze of alcohol and that, in many cases, it can be argued that the act was consensual and therefore not a crime. Add to that the fact that the standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt and it can be easily seen why criminal prosecutions are often unsuccessful.

If I was to guess, that with the increased emphasis on investigating and laying charges, that the conviction rate may very well go down as ever more difficult and marginal cases hit the courts.

 :cheers:


----------



## Navy_Pete

FJAG said:
			
		

> The problem with this article is that it tries to create an issue that the military is not treating sexual assault cases significantly enough by virtue of the fact that the conviction rate is lower than in the civilian courts.
> 
> The problem with this argument is that the there were only 17 courts martial for sexual assault in the military within the last three years. That is far too few cases to  provided a statistically meaningful sample. Effectively as few as one more conviction a year would have brought DND to the national average.
> 
> The second problem is that there are far too many advocates that are of the view that if charges are laid then a conviction should automatically follow. Sexual assault cases are much more complex then that. When one deals with a stabbing or a shooting, then the requisite elements of the offence are fairly easily indicative of the fact that a crime was most probably committed. With a sexual assault there are the ever present complications that the act probably took place in a haze of alcohol and that, in many cases, it can be argued that the act was consensual and therefore not a crime. Add to that the fact that the standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt and it can be easily seen why criminal prosecutions are often unsuccessful.
> 
> If I was to guess, that with the increased emphasis on investigating and laying charges, that the conviction rate may very well go down as ever more difficult and marginal cases hit the courts.
> 
> :cheers:



I read through a fair bit of the trial (?proceedings?findings?) on the court martial website over the last six months or so out of curiousity. I think the hard part for a lot of the cases is it becomes a 'he said/she said' issue, so the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is hard to hit when there wasn't a conviction.  Probably the same as civy courts, but as you raised, 17 cases is not a reasonable sample size, so kind of a meaningless use of the fraction.  I'm assuming in a few of them though they had more than enough for admin action, and would be surprise if a few of them weren't out in the cold afterwards.  The 'not guilty' findings that I saw were pretty clear that it was a burden of proof issue vice not believing something happened.

It was interesting to read though, one of them had some disputing experts on how memory works which the judge slapped down and dismissed that portion as irrelevant. It was pretty professional, but imagined it might have felt like some legal pummeling behind the woodshed.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'd be interested to see how many of those folks convicted of disgraceful conduct had an Admin Review done and were punted, or left quickly to avoid the AR process. At the end of the day, getting rid of the rotten apples in the CAF is the goal, and perhaps those AR results should be released as well as a deterrent. Likely not possible due to privacy laws, but one can hope.


----------



## Blackadder1916

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> . . .  At the end of the day, getting rid of the rotten apples in the CAF is the goal, . . .



And that perception is one of the elements that makes the CF look bad with this issue.  FJAG may probably come back and correct me, but the difference between the civilian justice system and the military justice system is the goal.  One focuses mainly on the "punishment" of wrong-doers while the other is there to ensure that "good order and discipline" is maintained.  A victim of sexual assault probably cares little that the CF chugs along in proper order, getting rid of those whose behaviour creates problems; what they would probably like is some sort of action involving a rusty cheese knife or, since that is unlikely, having the bastard locked away.


----------



## FJAG

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And that perception is one of the elements that makes the CF look bad with this issue.  FJAG may probably come back and correct me, but the difference between the civilian justice system and the military justice system is the goal.  One focuses mainly on the "punishment" of wrong-doers while the other is there to ensure that "good order and discipline" is maintained.  A victim of sexual assault probably cares little that the CF chugs along in proper order, getting rid of those whose behaviour creates problems; what they would probably like is some sort of action involving a rusty cheese knife or, since that is unlikely, having the ******* locked away.



The goals of the system are in fact similar. The civilian justice system is designed to uphold the rule of law, while that of the military justice system is the maintenance of discipline. The military system has a broader scope in that at the lower end it deals with purely disciplinary matters (such as failure to shave or shine boots something which the civilian justice system does not care about) while at the upper end it has the same objectives and processes as the civilian one (ie uphold the rule of law)

While there are procedural differences between how the civilian criminal courts and courts martial operate, the basic fundamentals (rules of evidence, standards of proof, principles of sentencing etc) are basically the same. This creates a bit of a disconnect in some people's mind as between how DND as a corporate entity deals with sexual harassment, assault issues etc and how the military courts do. While DND clearly has a corporate agenda to create a zero tolerance environment for harassment and can further that through administrative processes based on lower standards of proof (generally a civil standard of balance of probabilities) a military court must use the same criminal standards for conviction as a civilian court (beyond a reasonable doubt). This is why, even after a "not guilty" finding in court, a member may nonetheless still be the subject of administrative action.

 :cheers:


----------



## putz

FJAG said:
			
		

> The problem with this article is that it tries to create an issue that the military is not treating sexual assault cases significantly enough by virtue of the fact that the conviction rate is lower than in the civilian courts.
> 
> The problem with this argument is that the there were only 17 courts martial for sexual assault in the military within the last three years. That is far too few cases to  provided a statistically meaningful sample. Effectively as few as one more conviction a year would have brought DND to the national average.
> 
> The second problem is that there are far too many advocates that are of the view that if charges are laid then a conviction should automatically follow. Sexual assault cases are much more complex then that. When one deals with a stabbing or a shooting, then the requisite elements of the offence are fairly easily indicative of the fact that a crime was most probably committed. With a sexual assault there are the ever present complications that the act probably took place in a haze of alcohol and that, in many cases, it can be argued that the act was consensual and therefore not a crime. Add to that the fact that the standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt and it can be easily seen why criminal prosecutions are often unsuccessful.
> 
> If I was to guess, that with the increased emphasis on investigating and laying charges, that the conviction rate may very well go down as ever more difficult and marginal cases hit the courts.
> 
> :cheers:



Alcohol is not a defense.  Issue I take with that statement is a lot of these "alcohol consent" cases never even the inside of a court martial.  There is nothing worse than having to sit across from a victim FACE TO FACE and have to tell them that charges are not proceeding due to the relative low probability of conviction.  I was really hoping that when decision like that were being made it was the JAG that would have to tell the victim, in person, that fact.  Additionally, when charged and convicted under NDA 130 you face a criminal record.  Take that same charge and plead it to a conduct and nothing.  Take it civy side and plead the Sexual Assault to and Assault and Criminal Record.  Honestly you could of committed a sexual assault in the CAF and face not repercussions other than administrative.  For the argument that is enough than also consider that if I walked into Joe Civies workplace and arrested him his employer could fire him on the spot.  Sexual Assaults, should NOT ever see the light of a Court Martial UNLESS it was a deployed operation and NDA 130 is the only means of proceeding.

I'm surprised that no one has focused in on ONLY 17 in the that three year period seeing as how many were investigated and sent for RMP review for sexual assault.  I think a better gauge would be to find out how many were sent to JAG as a SA but came back recommending something else. 

I apologize if I'm coming across as harsh but I am very passionate about Sexual Assault investigations.


----------



## Blackadder1916

FJAG said:
			
		

> The goals of the system are in fact similar. The civilian justice system is designed to uphold the rule of law, while that of the military justice system is the maintenance of discipline. . . . .



Perhaps I should have stated that the "perception" of the goals of the two system are different, especially in the eyes of victims, though overall victims of sexual crimes are probably not happy with either.  Anyway, your elucidations on legal matters are always welcome.

The CF is an easy target due to these "perceptions".  As you previously stated the number of courts martial do not make a statistical analysis meaningful.  But when has that ever stopped some media outlets and ex-colonels.  The CF can seem tone deaf to the issue.  Victims of crime and those that advocate on their behalf (regardless of the reason for that advocacy) likely do not care about principles of "upholding the rule of law" or "maintaining discipline", they want someone to pay for the wrong done to them.


----------



## armyvern

putz said:
			
		

> Alcohol is not a defense.  Issue I take with that statement is a lot of these "alcohol consent" cases never even the inside of a court martial.



Not even if both parties were intoxicated?  I'm curious about this.  Why would only one be held to be capable of decision-making if/when both are smammered?



> There is nothing worse than having to sit across from a victim FACE TO FACE and have to tell them that charges are not proceeding due to the relative low probability of conviction.



Not a task that everyone could do.  Those who have to do so have my utmost respect.



> I'm surprised that no one has focused in on ONLY 17 in the that three year period seeing as how many were investigated and sent for RMP review for sexual assault.  I think a better gauge would be to find out how many were sent to JAG as a SA but came back recommending something else.



I'd think that same statistic would bear itself out in the non-military domain though as well.  How many went to the prosecutors and came back as lesser or non-prosecutable.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

putz said:
			
		

> Alcohol is not a defense.  Issue I take with that statement is a lot of these "alcohol consent" cases never even the inside of a court martial.  There is nothing worse than having to sit across from a victim FACE TO FACE and have to tell them that charges are not proceeding due to the relative low probability of conviction.  I was really hoping that when decision like that were being made it was the JAG that would have to tell the victim, in person, that fact.  Additionally, when charged and convicted under NDA 130 you face a criminal record.  Take that same charge and plead it to a conduct and nothing.  Take it civy side and plead the Sexual Assault to and Assault and Criminal Record.  Honestly you could of committed a sexual assault in the CAF and face not repercussions other than administrative.  For the argument that is enough than also consider that if I walked into Joe Civies workplace and arrested him his employer could fire him on the spot.  Sexual Assaults, should NOT ever see the light of a Court Martial UNLESS it was a deployed operation and NDA 130 is the only means of proceeding.
> 
> I'm surprised that no one has focused in on ONLY 17 in the that three year period seeing as how many were investigated and sent for RMP review for sexual assault.  I think a better gauge would be to find out how many were sent to JAG as a SA but came back recommending something else.
> 
> I apologize if I'm coming across as harsh but I am very passionate about Sexual Assault investigations.



I get that you are passionate about this, but what is the solution without also endangering the charter rights of the accused, who remains innocent until proven guilty? Is the Prosecution Branch supposed to take every allegation of sexual assault to a court martial, regardless of the strength of the evidence just...because?

I share the goal of a sexual assault free CF, but I do not see how we get there by violating the charter or by bogging down the court martial system even more.

I would imagine that in some (most? Nearly all?) of these cases where there is even a hint that the allegations have some substance, there is an alternate charge laid or admin action is taken. None of which shows up easily in the facile manner the CBC treated this serious issue.


----------



## McG

From the previously quoted article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sex-assault-conviction-rate-1.4360847


> ...
> 
> More often than not, the alleged offenders have pleaded to, or been found guilty of, the lesser charge of disgraceful conduct.
> 
> ...
> 
> ... between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2017, there were 17 courts martial where the accused faced one or more charges of sexual assault.
> 
> Those resulted in four guilty verdicts, eight not guilty findings, four cases in which charges were stayed and one case that was withdrawn.
> 
> ...


So, of the 8 not guilty findings, how many cases saw a guilty finding on a lesser included or alternative charge?  The first paragraph above would seem to imply at least half were lesser convictions, would it not?  Does any one have a link to the source document?

Also, because the military has various lesser charges unavailable to a civilian prosecutor, is it possible a military prosecutor will prush to trial with things a civilian would not because there is greater opportunity for something to stick?


----------



## FJAG

MCG said:
			
		

> From the previously quoted article:
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sex-assault-conviction-rate-1.4360847So, of the 8 not guilty findings, how many cases saw a guilty finding on a lesser included or alternative charge?  The first paragraph above would seem to imply at least half were lesser convictions, would it not?  Does any one have a link to the source document?
> 
> Also, because the military has various lesser charges unavailable to a civilian prosecutor, is it possible a military prosecutor will prush to trial with things a civilian would not because there is greater opportunity for something to stick?



I don't have the source documents per se but you can get the actual cases through the Chief Military Judge's website. As an example the most recent case listed from Oct 2017 is a case of exactly this nature where the individual pleaded guilty to Misconduct and the sexual assault charge was stayed (it had to be because the charges were laid in the alternative). In that case the complainant voluntarily hugged the accused but he then put his hands on her buttocks and lifted her up a few inches for the hug. While she had consented to the hug she had not consented to the hands on the buttocks and the accused readily admitted his guilt both to the police and by pleading guilty:

https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/231908/index.do

I'll leave it to you to look through the remaining cases for those three years. Most of them should have the decisions on line.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=putz] There is nothing worse than having to sit across from a victim FACE TO FACE and have to tell them that charges are not proceeding due to the relative low probability of conviction.  
[/quote]
I'd say being falsely accused and treated like you're guilty is worse.


----------



## RCDtpr

putz said:
			
		

> Alcohol is not a defense.  Issue I take with that statement is a lot of these "alcohol consent" cases never even the inside of a court martial.  There is nothing worse than having to sit across from a victim FACE TO FACE and have to tell them that charges are not proceeding due to the relative low probability of conviction.  I was really hoping that when decision like that were being made it was the JAG that would have to tell the victim, in person, that fact.  Additionally, when charged and convicted under NDA 130 you face a criminal record.  Take that same charge and plead it to a conduct and nothing.  Take it civy side and plead the Sexual Assault to and Assault and Criminal Record.  Honestly you could of committed a sexual assault in the CAF and face not repercussions other than administrative.  For the argument that is enough than also consider that if I walked into Joe Civies workplace and arrested him his employer could fire him on the spot.  Sexual Assaults, should NOT ever see the light of a Court Martial UNLESS it was a deployed operation and NDA 130 is the only means of proceeding.
> 
> I'm surprised that no one has focused in on ONLY 17 in the that three year period seeing as how many were investigated and sent for RMP review for sexual assault.  I think a better gauge would be to find out how many were sent to JAG as a SA but came back recommending something else.
> 
> I apologize if I'm coming across as harsh but I am very passionate about Sexual Assault investigations.



It's easy to blame RMP etc. however the sad reality is until NIS admits they aren't as good as they think they are, and take steps to rectify deficiencies, files such as sex assaults etc. will constantly be plead down because it's the RMPs only option based on the quality of file presented to them.

Something is better than a withdrawal or acquittal......


----------



## putz

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> It's easy to blame RMP etc. however the sad reality is until NIS admits they aren't as good as they think they are, and take steps to rectify deficiencies, files such as sex assaults etc. will constantly be plead down because it's the RMPs only option based on the quality of file presented to them.
> 
> Something is better than a withdrawal or acquittal......



I would love to hear some specific examples of this. Namely if an RMP finds a fault in the investigation he will come back to the investigator and have that corrected


----------



## RCDtpr

putz said:
			
		

> I would love to hear some specific examples of this. Namely if an RMP finds a fault in the investigation he will come back to the investigator and have that corrected



Being that this is an open forum I'm not going to cite specific examples.....but being that you're a member of the branch......you've seen it like the rest of us.........whether you want to admit it or not


----------



## FJAG

putz said:
			
		

> I would love to hear some specific examples of this. Namely if an RMP finds a fault in the investigation he will come back to the investigator and have that corrected



I won't give you specific examples either but what I will do is refer you to DMP Policy Directive 001/00 dtaed 1 Mar 00 which specifies the relationship between DMP and the CFNIS:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-legal/national-investigation-service-relationship.page

If anything this should at least give you an understanding that there is an interactive process of cooperation between prosecutors and the CFNIS at all stages of the process.

 :cheers:


----------



## garb811

I hate to say it but a big, big part of the problem is we are sending Sexual Assault charges to Courts Martial on cases that wouldn't even be investigated in the civilian world, let alone ever make it to trial.

The CM cited by FJAG is a perfect example of that phenomenon.


----------



## QV

And why is that garb?  Who does the file review and issues commands to the investigators?  When an investigator makes a determination based on available evidence and that decision is overturned, who does that and what is typically their training and experience level?


----------



## FJAG

QV said:
			
		

> And why is that garb?  Who does the file review and issues commands to the investigators?  When an investigator makes a determination based on available evidence and that decision is overturned, who does that and what is typically their training and experience level?



"garb?" ???

Apart from the prosecutors review of the CFNIS file and charges, there are reviews within the investigators chain of command and later within the prosecutor's chain of command.

I can't speak specifically for the CFNIS but my understanding is that these are senior MPs who have had the training and experience in the branch with these matters. There are supervisors within the service who mange matters. Link here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=the-canadian-forces-national-investigation-service/hnps1u2k

As far as prosecutors with CMPS are concerned, all are individuals who have gone through law school, articled with a law firm or government legal department and who have had specific training and experience in prosecutions. The senior prosecutor is a colonel who has a LCol as his deputy and about a dozen plus majors. One particular note is that there are around nine reserve legal officers many of whom are full time prosecutors with provincial attorneys general. There is ample experience within the office of DMP to handle complex prosecutions, advise the military police and chain of command and mentor newer prosecutors.

The following is a link to the CMPS's last Annual Report which will give you more answers about the process, statistics etc then you'll ever need to know:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-dmp-2016-17/index.page

 :cheers:


----------



## Occam

FJAG said:
			
		

> "garb?" ???



garb811, the poster he was replying to.


----------



## garb811

QV said:
			
		

> And why is that garb?  Who does the file review and issues commands to the investigators?  When an investigator makes a determination based on available evidence and that decision is overturned, who does that and what is typically their training and experience level?


"We" in this instance, is the CAF as a whole.


----------



## FJAG

Occam said:
			
		

> garb811, the poster he was replying to.



 :facepalm:   Thanks.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> *DND sex assault conviction rate lower than civilian courts*. . .
> 
> Over the last three years, slightly less than one quarter of sexual assault trials prosecuted by the Canadian military justice system have resulted in a guilty verdict, according to statistics compiled by CBC News.
> . . .
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sex-assault-conviction-rate-1.4360847
> . . .



New article about sexual assault conviction rates on the civilian side here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/10/27/statcan-majority-of-founded-sexual-assault-dont-end-in-conviction_a_23258106/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

 :cheers:


----------



## PuckChaser

FJAG said:
			
		

> New article about sexual assault conviction rates on the civilian side here:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/10/27/statcan-majority-of-founded-sexual-assault-dont-end-in-conviction_a_23258106/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage
> 
> :cheers:



So the CAF's conviction rate is double that of the civilian sector? More and more sounding like a typical CBC military bashing article. I even noticed the author cherry picked the 2014-2015 year to make it sound like the civilian courts are way better, but the HuffPost article says over a similar timeline civilian courts are only 12%, where DND is 23%.


----------



## Blackadder1916

And another one.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sex-assault-charges-1.4378655


> Decorated military officer accused of sex crimes in Quebec, New Brunswick
> 7 members of military have been charged in the last 30 days with sex-related offenses
> 
> By Murray Brewster, CBC News  Posted: Oct 30, 2017 2:46 PM ET| Last Updated: Oct 30, 2017 4:29 PM ET
> 
> A high-ranking officer in the Canadian military, decorated by the Governor General for combat action in Afghanistan, is facing two charges of sexual assault and one count of committing an indecent act in alleged incidents that took place in two provinces over nearly 10 years.
> 
> Col. Jean-François Duval, who is currently assigned to the Canadian Defence Academy in Kingston, Ont., was charged Monday by the criminal investigative branch of the military.
> 
> Duval is the seventh member of the military to be charged with sex-related offenses in the past 30 days as part of an intensifying crackdown on misconduct.
> 
> Duval was an artillery battery commander in Kandahar supporting the Royal 22e Regiment battle group between April and October of 2009.
> 
> He received Meritorious Service Medal in 2011. His "leadership and dedicated efforts" were praised as part of the citation.
> 
> The accusations against Duval involve five members of the forces and are alleged to have taken place at military bases in Valcartier, Que. and Gagetown, N.B.
> 
> The series of alleged incidents took place between January 2005 and December 2014.
> 
> In addition to the criminal charges, he is also accused of two counts of scandalous conduct, two counts of disgraceful conduct and three counts of prejudice to good order and discipline.
> 
> Those are administrative charges under the National Defence Act.
> 
> . . . . .  (more at link)



It irritates me seeing the use of "administrative charges under the National Defence Act" to describe the service offences that that I assume have been layed in addition to any NDA 130 charges.  This was recently used (also in a piece with Mr. Brewster's byline) by the ubiquitous former colonel well known for commenting to the CBC and it appears to have been taken up by Mr. Brewster as a means of insinuating that they mean nothing.  Maybe things have changed since I served, but "service offences" were not referred to as "administrative".  That tagline was most often used for actions that were totally outside the disciplinary process.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think this quote is also relevant and worth noting.



> On Thursday, Statistics Canada released a comprehensive survey of how the justice system deals with sex crimes.
> 
> It painted an even bleaker picture for sexual assault cases over a five-year period ending in 2014. During that time, civilian courts only managed a conviction rate of 12 per cent.
> 
> The director of military prosecution, Col. Bruce MacGregor, has said measuring the number of guilty and not guilty verdicts is not an appropriate measure of the effectiveness of a justice system.


----------



## JesseWZ

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> It's easy to blame RMP etc. however the sad reality is until NIS admits they aren't as good as they think they are, and take steps to rectify deficiencies, files such as sex assaults etc. will constantly be plead down because it's the RMPs only option based on the quality of file presented to them.
> 
> Something is better than a withdrawal or acquittal......



Your post indicates you _*fundamentally misunderstand *_the relationship between the RMP and CFNIS, charge laying, the court martial system and how plea agreements work. We don't drop a file on the RMPs desk after months of work and then say, "alright, here it is then, good luck".

They are never surprised by a file appearing on their desk to the point they have to plead down a sex assault charge.

RMP is involved at all steps in the process, from the initial complaint, to charge laying, and ultimately, for preparing for court martial. Just like the Chain of Command, we don't lay charges without consulting the RMP. Doing so would be foolish. So if a sex assault charge is laid pursuant to s.130, its with the *acknowledgement and agreement *of the RMP and usually near the end of the investigation. 

Many (especially historical) cases are difficult to prosecute due to memory fading over time and the loss of ability to collect relevant evidence (time delay). In that case, there are often agreements between RMP and defense for a plea to the lesser charge (ie disgraceful conduct) to avoid a lengthy or difficult trial. (This is called plea bargaining - since you've apparently never heard of it. It's a common practice.)

Has the CFNIS had challenges in the past? Abso-friggan-lutely. Will we face challenges in the future? Almost certainly, but I'm curious which particular deficiencies you believe we globally suffer from, given your vantage point *outside* the organization? 

How should we investigate sexual assaults? Every member of the CFNIS has sexual assault investigator training, trauma informed interview training, forensic interviewing training, constant file/case management at least two levels up, consultation with RMP/Crown, etc. How should we do things differently? 

 I eagerly await what changes you think we should make investigating sexual assaults, based on your experience investigating them (if you have any).

Finally, since you aren't a member of the CFNIS, and you haven't had the liberty to review the quality of files presented to the RMP from the CFNIS, it would seem then that you don't know what your talking about, and the information you've presented as fact is just rumour, speculation, or third hand information.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Your post indicates you _*fundamentally misunderstand *_the relationship between the RMP and CFNIS, charge laying, the court martial system and how plea agreements work. We don't drop a file on the RMPs desk after months of work and then say, "alright, here it is then, good luck".
> 
> They are never surprised by a file appearing on their desk to the point they have to plead down a sex assault charge.
> 
> RMP is involved at all steps in the process, from the initial complaint, to charge laying, and ultimately, for preparing for court martial. Just like the Chain of Command, we don't lay charges without consulting the RMP. Doing so would be foolish. So if a sex assault charge is laid pursuant to s.130, its with the *acknowledgement and agreement *of the RMP and usually near the end of the investigation.
> 
> Many (especially historical) cases are difficult to prosecute due to memory fading over time and the loss of ability to collect relevant evidence (time delay). In that case, there are often agreements between RMP and defense for a plea to the lesser charge (ie disgraceful conduct) to avoid a lengthy or difficult trial. (This is called plea bargaining - since you've apparently never heard of it. It's a common practice.)
> 
> Has the CFNIS had challenges in the past? Abso-friggan-lutely. Will we face challenges in the future? Almost certainly, but I'm curious which particular deficiencies you believe we globally suffer from, given your vantage point *outside* the organization?
> 
> How should we investigate sexual assaults? Every member of the CFNIS has sexual assault investigator training, trauma informed interview training, forensic interviewing training, constant file/case management at least two levels up, consultation with RMP/Crown, etc. How should we do things differently?
> 
> I eagerly await what changes you think we should make investigating sexual assaults, based on your experience investigating them (if you have any).
> 
> Finally, since you aren't a member of the CFNIS, and you haven't had the liberty to review the quality of files presented to the RMP from the CFNIS, it would seem then that you don't know what your talking about, and the information you've presented as fact is just rumour, speculation, or third hand information.



This is a very good post.

I'm not an MP but I can appreciate that being one and a member of the NIS is not easy.  You take a lot of unwarranted flak, you're totally under-resourced and the CAF expects an investigation of everything and anything where other police forces can be more selective.

It's a unique relationship, between the MPs and the rest of the CAF, and as much as it's a strength in some ways, it's also the biggest weakness because you are intimately connected to the organization you are tasked with policing and investigating.


----------



## Gunner98

I am not sure that the CDS was given good advice prior to making this statement, "I just signed off yesterday a Canadian Forces general order that will come out that will prohibit the release of a person who is suffering trauma as a result of harmful sexual behaviour until such time that they’ve had a chance to heal, which generally means that they’ve been through all of the administrative and legal judiciary proceedings that they need to."   

Trauma is not healed by administrative and judicial means.  There is no such things as "a chance to heal", the recovery process varies for each victim - some folks never recover fully from the trauma and those who do begin recovery do not do it through admin or legal means.

I don't think these statements are much better - "Well the joint suicide prevention strategy just came out. I think we’ve been doing a lot that’s already in it for a while. It’s hard to tell when you meet success. It’s hard to tell when you’ve prevented a suicide. All you see are the suicides that occur. I think we’re getting more and more people into mental health care. That’s important.

And I think that although Veterans Affairs will look after accounting for the veterans that commit suicide, inside the Canadian Forces I can’t say it’s a success at this juncture. We still have people commit suicide while in uniform. We want to prevent it. We want to get to zero."

Getting people into mental health is not as important as dealing with the issues that cause people to seek out mental health treatment.  Certainly not everyone that gets into "mental health care" is there because of suicidal ideation or intent.  The CAF will never meet it goals of no sexual assault and no suicides because neither are things that you can eliminate with policies and treatment.  Establishing a sense of trust between the soldier and his chain of command will improve the levels of success. In both areas people fear reprisal and punitive action being taken and irreparable stigmatization for speaking out and seeking assistance. 

Lastly, this is a poor analogy - "we’ve had cases where people have been released before they’ve had the conditions set for them to actually heal, which is akin to releasing someone for medical reasons because a wound hasn’t healed yet and you haven’t done all the things you need to do with a wound to help it heal." 

Suicidal thoughts/intent and sexual trauma are not wounds that you help heal with paper work, Cepacol and foot powder.  Returning people to their pre-enlistment wholeness is a complicated process and will seldom be accomplished when release is the ultimate outcome for CAF leadership. I am pretty sure that he made it clear in recent statements that broken people can/will have a place in the CAF.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I am not sure that the CDS was given good advice prior to making this statement, "I just signed off yesterday a Canadian Forces general order that will come out that will prohibit the release of a person who is suffering trauma as a result of harmful sexual behaviour until such time that they’ve had a chance to heal, which generally means that they’ve been through all of the administrative and legal judiciary proceedings that they need to."



I wonder how this compares with the policies for similar issues with non-CAF workplaces? 

My guess is that we're being overly cautious as a result of being in the glare of the press, and the relative weakness of our most senior leadership, which is probably not a good thing.


----------



## Gunner98

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I wonder how this compares with the policies for similar issues with non-CAF workplaces?
> 
> My guess is that we're being overly cautious as a result of being in the glare of the press, and the relative weakness of our most senior leadership, which is probably not a good thing.



I think we need to be overly cautious - when you ask someone to commit to unlimited liability they need to know you have their back when the system, their leaders or peers fail them.  As we so regularly point out, these conditions are not inherent in non-CAF workplaces.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I think we need to be overly cautious - when you ask someone to commit to unlimited liability they need to know you have their back when the system, their leaders or peers fail them.  As we so regularly point out, these conditions are not inherent in non-CAF workplaces.



There are hundred different reasons why it is so.  

1.  CAF working conditions are unique 
2.  The environment is male dominated 
3.  Many of our bases are often in remote locations without a whole lot of extra-curricular activities to keep people occupied
4.  We have a younger demographic 
5.  We inculcate group-think for obvious reasons and this has unintended consequences
6.  We have a culture heavily influenced by the consumption of alcohol
7.  We have a culture of subservience
etc, etc, etc....

I rarely drink anymore (to excess) for a number of reasons, but when I lived in Petawawa, I can rarely think of a weekend I didn't spend with "the boys" getting blasted on Friday night.  We had a pretty cohesive team but a lot of that cohesion was built on a glass house of booze, testosterone and military training.  Go on exercise, workout a lot and hit the sauce on the Friday night at the mess with "the boys" was the garrison routine.

Maybe other units/organizations were different but this was pretty much the standard at the Infantry Battalion.  Our Regiment and the Armoured Corps were the two biggest practitioners of this lifestyle at the base, we also spent a lot of time hanging around with the Field Hospital/Ambulance for obvious reasons.  The troops were pretty much the same.

I don't know how you change this culture?  It's pretty much the glue that builds a war fighting unit.  

There are some creeps out there but the majority of our problems stem from poor decision-making under the influence of alcohol.  

Edit:

Combine this with young men fueled by testosterone, group think and under-developed prefrontal cortex's and you've got a nice recipe for irrational decision-making.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Humphrey Bogart]

*I don't know how you change this culture? * It's pretty much the glue that builds a war fighting unit.
[/quote]

I wouldn't want to.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wouldn't want to.



This is my point, if you change the culture, do you spoil the recipe that makes these organizations effective war machines?
































As you can see, it's pretty much the universally accepted practice everywhere.


----------



## mariomike

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is my point, if you change the culture, do you spoil the recipe that makes these organizations effective war machines?



Reminds me of something I read,

"The military has long known that the soldier's morale is sustained not just by plenty of badges and medals and by ample access to alcohol and, when possible, non-infectious sexual intercourse but by the irrational conviction on the part of each soldier that he has the honor of serving in the best squad in the best platoon in the best company in the best battalion in the best regiment etc. in the army."

Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War
By Paul Fussell


----------



## tomahawk6

Ran across this story this morning.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-must-pay-up-for-military-sexual-assault-victims/ar-BBXkjXm?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## AbdullahD

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Ran across this story this morning.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-must-pay-up-for-military-sexual-assault-victims/ar-BBXkjXm?ocid=spartanntp



From my biased point of view it makes sense that senior members exploit junior ones. I would think if it was reversed the senior member would have more avenues or confidence in dealing with the situation. 

Quite suprising at how much is being paid out to be honest though. 

Abdullah


----------



## brihard

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> From my biased point of view it makes sense that senior members exploit junior ones. I would think if it was reversed the senior member would have more avenues or confidence in dealing with the situation.
> 
> Quite suprising at how much is being paid out to be honest though.
> 
> Abdullah



It's expected that there will be quite a lot of claimants, so the amount isn't that surprising.

I know a couple people who have been involved in the legal action, and they're seeing the bigger victory as ND + VAC policy and procedure changes, including VAC's change to the 'benefit of doubt' policy, which impacts not just Military Sexual Trauma survivors, but all VAC claimants.


----------



## dapaterson

Further information, including claims forms and copies of the final settlement agreement, is available at: https://www.caf-dndsexualmisconductclassaction.ca/


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Brihard said:
			
		

> It's expected that there will be quite a lot of claimants, so the amount isn't that surprising.
> 
> I know a couple people who have been involved in the legal action, and they're seeing the bigger victory as ND + VAC policy and procedure changes, including VAC's change to the 'benefit of doubt' policy, which impacts not just Military Sexual Trauma survivors, but all VAC claimants.



I might PM you on other means... I have questions that you *might* be able to help answer.


----------



## mariomike

In the news,



> CTV News
> December 4, 2019
> 
> Former high-ranking naval officer charged with 7 more cases of sexual assault since 2018 arrest
> https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/former-high-ranking-naval-officer-charged-with-7-more-cases-of-sexual-assault-since-2018-arrest-1.4715408#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=ifBPpSO



None of the allegations against the retired officer have been proven in court.


----------

