# General Vance - Inappropriate conduct?



## NavyShooter

Interesting snippet in the news tonight.









						Former top soldier Gen. Jonathan Vance facing allegations of inappropriate behaviour with female subordinates: sources - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Former chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance announced his plans to resign last summer after the PMO did not recommend him for a top military post with NATO.




					globalnews.ca
				




_"Former chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance is facing allegations of inappropriate behaviour with two female subordinates, including one regarding an alleged relationship with a woman he significantly outranked.

A source with direct knowledge of the relationship came forward to Global News alleging a relationship with sexually explicit exchanges and repeated private meetings. Global News has viewed evidence that appears to support this, dating from 2019 to as recently as January 2021.

The evidence reviewed also suggests the two met on at least three occasions outside of work

Global News reached out to the female subordinate alleged to have had a relationship with Vance while he was chief of defence staff. She said the allegations are true but asked to remain anonymous."_


----------



## Jarnhamar

Does inappropriate behavior with subordinates fall under sexual misconduct?


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:


> Does inappropriate behavior with subordinates fall under sexual misconduct?


Devil will be in the details


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> Vance responded to questions about the alleged relationship in two separate phone calls with Global News. In his first response, Vance suggested he only knew the woman in a professional context, and denied having any direct communication with her.
> 
> He suggested any sexually explicit exchanges could be fabricated.
> 
> He subsequently acknowledged that they had dated in Gagetown, N.B., where they were both posted in 2001, while they were in separate chains of command. He said the relationship with her evolved over the years, describing them as “colleagues and friends.”
> 
> Roughly two hours later, Vance called Global News a second time. He acknowledged he had been “holding back” in his initial response, saying he had done so because he didn’t want to “betray confidences.”



Oh, I thought answering a question wrongly was called "*lying*". 



> Sources also allege to Global News that Vance made a sexual comment toward a second, much younger junior soldier prior to becoming chief of defence, which a source described as unwanted.
> 
> That comment, contained in documents obtained by Global News, appeared to have been sent from Vance’s military email account to a female corporal in 2012, when Vance was a major general and leading the Strategic Joint Staff.
> 
> The female corporal had reached out to Vance for career advice. A response sent from Vance’s email account raises the prospect of going to a clothing optional vacation destination with her. Vance says that he has no recollection of the exchange and suggested that if it did occur, he would have intended it as a joke rather than a solicitation.



Seriously?


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> Seriously?



Pretty sure calling something like that a joke is an exact example they use as something not okay by operation honor. So much for Vance being a "champion" of it. Do as I say, not as I do, hope they kept the emails


----------



## Weinie

Eye In The Sky said:


> Oh, I thought answering a question wrongly was called "*lying*".
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?


Just a matter of time before this hit the street.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> Pretty sure calling something like that a joke is an exact example they use as something not okay by operation honor. So much for Vance being a "champion" of it. Do as I say, not as I do, hope they kept the emails



perhaps the Cpl “experienced it differently” than Vance?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Wow. I suspect if someone were to look through all the emails I had ever sent there are probably some pretty offside comments to friends, but c'mon, a Major General making that kind of "joke" to a Cpl asking for career advice? Greasy.

Also that and dating a subordinate is exactly the kind of thing he was happy to run others through the wringer for under Op Honour.... just wow.


----------



## YZT580

Wonder what Norman is thinking?


----------



## MilEME09

YZT580 said:


> Wonder what Norman is thinking?


"Karma"


----------



## Jarnhamar

Navy_Pete said:


> Wow. I suspect if someone were to look through all the emails I had ever sent there are probably some pretty offside comments to friends, but c'mon, a Major General making that kind of "joke" to a Cpl asking for career advice? Greasy.
> 
> Also that and dating a subordinate is exactly the kind of thing he was happy to run others through the wringer for under Op Honour.... just wow.


True. 
But a corporal emailing a major general for career advice raises some other questions as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The general should know better than to have reciprocated that conversation.  And most certainly not in the accused manner. 

Who was that general in Afg who was caught with his clerk ?


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:


> True.
> But a corporal emailing a major general for career advice raises some other questions as well.


For her to feel that sending that email was appropriate means one of 2 things in my mind:

1. Vance had inappropriate personal conversations with her to groom her so she felt that it was appropriate for her to do that. Which would be a disgusting predatory act. Or;
2. He as the COS ran an HQ that lacked any sort of military bearing or discipline, and instead of correcting her via her Chain of Command he took the opportunity to sexual harass her.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:


> But a corporal emailing a major general for career advice raises some other questions as well.



It does...but none that point a finger more harshly at a junior rank than should be pointed at the senior rank...or so I've been taught by trusted superiors/mentors over the years.

The bigger the separation in rank, the more "pointed" the finger at the superior should be, IMO.  To quote a phrase I've thought suited more than one situation..."_knew, or reasonably ought to have known_".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Who was that general in Afg who was caught with his clerk ?



 BGen Ménard


----------



## dapaterson

Demoted to Colonel (post retirement) and fined $7000.






						Ménard J.B.D. (Brigadier-General), R. v. - Chief Military Judge
					

Get quick, easy access to all Government of Canada services and information.




					decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca


----------



## Ping Monkey

VAdm Norman be like...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Jarnhamar said:


> True.
> But a corporal emailing a major general for career advice raises some other questions as well.


Yeah, it's a weird situation for sure. Do generals have the equivalent to a steward? (Which is also generally a bit of a weird thing as well when the Cmdre or someone comes on board with what seems like the duplicate for all of CJOC staff and a steward, not sure if that's even still a thing).


----------



## PPCLI Guy

As far as I know, Army Generals do NOT / NOT get a steward.


----------



## Kilted

I'm not sure if I missed something, but other then being of a different rank, I didn't see anything that was inappropriate with the female officer, especially the relationship was private. To my knowledge there are no specific regulations prohibiting people of different ranks being in relationships.  It's probably a bad idea, but then again any relationship between people who work together isn't always the best idea.  I remember a time when relationshps within the military were very frowned on.  I supposed, party due to Op Honour, there is less resistance to them, at least at the peer level.


----------



## Kilted

PPCLI Guy said:


> As far as I know, Army Generals do NOT / NOT get a steward.


What about an assistant to the regional manager?


----------



## brihard

So CAF got caught with its Vance down?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> Yeah, it's a weird situation for sure. Do generals have the equivalent to a steward? (Which is also generally a bit of a weird thing as well when the Cmdre or someone comes on board with what seems like the duplicate for all of CJOC staff and a steward, not sure if that's even still a thing).



No, but some get 'drivers'.









						Kay Summersby - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## MilEME09

Anyone else think the timing of his retirement to this hitting the media seems convenient?


----------



## FSTO

MilEME09 said:


> Anyone else think the timing of his retirement to this hitting the media seems convenient?


Yep, could you imagine the s-storm if this came out last fall?


----------



## mariomike

Navy_Pete said:


> Do generals have the equivalent to a steward?


They used to, apparently.​"When did batmen fall out of use?"​2 pages.


----------



## daftandbarmy

mariomike said:


> They used to, apparently.​"When did batmen fall out of use?"​2 pages.



I never had a batman but I had a Pl Signaller. Thank Gawd.

If he was busy with Sigs stuff I'd be on the brew and scoff duties, and vice versa. 

It was very much a 2 way street except, of course, he was always carrying a ruck that was about 20lbs heavier than my 80 pounder


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kilted said:


> I'm not sure if I missed something, but other then being of a different rank, I didn't see anything that was inappropriate with the female officer, especially the relationship was private. To my knowledge there are no specific regulations prohibiting people of different ranks being in relationships.



I think you're technically right. But I think if you perused through DAOD 5019-1 & 7021-1 you might find some borderline violations as well.

I've seen some cpls in relationships with WOs and MWOs attempt to, and in some cases succeed to, throw around the weight of their relationships. It's awkward as hell, especially when leadership goes out of their way to turn a blind eye to it and JNCOs are the ones with the courage to say something.

Is a troop or young officer that a MGen or CDS dating or messing around with going to get preferential treatment? Absolutely. We've all seen how junior - mid level officers gush and trip and fall all over themselves when there's a high ranking officer visiting. No officer is going to play Russian roulette with their career by upsetting someone a general is dating.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:


> No officer is going to play Russian roulette with their career by upsetting someone a general is dating.


I bet it's been that way since time immemorial.


----------



## FSTO

Will this revelation do irreparable harm to the Operation Honour MO? Will the troops be tuning out senior officers speeches with the thought of "Screw them! They tell us not to be a POS but act like POS themselves."


----------



## mariomike

"Do as I say, not as I do?"


----------



## Haggis

Was the relationship deemed inappropriate by the reporting party:

because of the rank differential; or
because of the marital status of either participant; or
because of favouritism granted to or advantage gained by the lower ranking female officer; or
because a combination of the above?
Was the relationship deemed harmful as defined in DAODs?

Was the relationship deemed to pose a personal security risk to either party who might be compromised by a hostile intelligence service?


----------



## Jarnhamar

FSTO said:


> Will the troops be tuning out senior officers speeches with the thought of "Screw them! They tell us not to be a POS but act like POS themselves."


Honestly that's about the spot I'm in now.



You can see what kind of guy General Vance is in response to corporals fending off drunken assaults from "VIPs" while the CF CWO and VCDS ignored it.

_"The absence of appropriate training for VIP aircrew, combined with a perception of reality of being under scrutiny, left them with a lack of confidence and uncertainty in their authority to intervene and take control of any situation, including alcohol service aboard the flight,"_


----------



## dangerboy

Jarnhamar said:


> Honestly that's about the spot I'm in now.
> 
> 
> 
> You can see what kind of guy General Vance is in response to corporals fending off drunken assaults frim "VIPs" while the CF CWO and VCDS ignored it.
> 
> _"The absence of appropriate training for VIP aircrew, combined with a perception of reality of being under scrutiny, left them with a lack of confidence and uncertainty in their authority to intervene and take control of any situation, including alcohol service aboard the flight,"_


The "Party Flight" destroyed a lot of Operation Honour's credibility with serving members in the CAF, especially when the former CAFCWO got a job working at the military's Sexual Misconduct Response Team following the allegations about events that occurred on the flight.


----------



## HiTechComms

Well this is why I follow the Billy Graham rule.


----------



## PMedMoe

HiTechComms said:


> Well this is why I follow the Billy Graham rule.


The Modesty Manifesto??

"The rule has been criticized for viewing women as potential objects of lust, as well as restricting opportunities for women to network with any male colleagues who happen to implement this rule.  When applied to workplace dinners or meetings in the United States, it could result in illegal labor discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  American pastorTracey Bianchi says that one result is that "women are marginalized and cut out of opportunities to network, share their ideas, and advance in the organization."  American pastor Ty Grigg says that the rule (assuming all American pastors implemented it) has not been "effective at curbing infidelity". He says that the rule "has framed relating with the opposite sex with fear", and that this leads to a diminished mutual respect, which in turn creates "the kind of environment where inappropriate relating is more likely to occur"."


----------



## TCM621

FSTO said:


> Will this revelation do irreparable harm to the Operation Honour MO? Will the troops be tuning out senior officers speeches with the thought of "Screw them! They tell us not to be a POS but act like POS themselves."


People who knew Vance tuned it out almost immediately.  His reputation in the Army was well established prior to being selected as CDS. He saw how the Australian Army commander was recieved on a similar issueand how badly Lawson was doing so he styled his approach appropriately. Lawson was actually attempting to take a measured approach while Vance saw the public wanted indignation and condemnation.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:


> Will this revelation do irreparable harm to the Operation Honour MO? Will the troops be tuning out senior officers speeches with the thought of "Screw them! They tell us not to be a POS but act like POS themselves."



It's OK, OP HONOUR is only the latest in a string of superficially effective programs aimed at improving the CAF. You can identify these programs because they are usually heralded by a flurry of 'we won't stand for this kind of thing anymore' statements, then followed up with a meaningless online self-test and not much more.

Lest we think the CAF are alone in experiencing this kind of leadership chaos, here's a good article about that kind of thing:

Why Leadership Development Isn’t Developing Leaders​
Too many business leaders today are out of touch with the employees they lead. Edelman estimates that one in three employees doesn’t trust their employer — despite the fact that billions are spent every year on leadership development. Part of the problem: Our primary method of developing leaders is antithetical to the type of leadership we need.

The vast majority of leadership programs are set curricula delivered through classroom-taught, rationally based, individual-focused methods. Participants are taken out of their day-to-day workplaces to be inspired by expert faculty, work on case studies, receive personal feedback, and take away the latest leadership thinking (and badges for their résumés). Yet study after study, including my own, tells us the qualities that leaders in today’s world need are intuitive, dynamic, collaborative, and grounded in here-and-now emotional intelligence.

The mismatch between leadership development as it exists and what leaders actually need is enormous and widening. What would work better?

Over the last 16 years I have carried out research into how leaders create change, and I’ve worked in the change leadership field for 25 years in multinational corporations. Over that time, I’ve come to appreciate four factors that lie at the heart of good, practical leadership development: making it experiential; influencing participants’ “being,” not just their “doing”; placing it into its wider, systemic context; and enrolling faculty who act less as experts and more as Sherpas.









						Why Leadership Development Isn’t Developing Leaders
					

And how to fix it.




					hbr.org


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:


> Will this revelation do irreparable harm to the Operation Honour MO? Will the troops be tuning out senior officers speeches with the thought of "Screw them! They tell us not to be a POS but act like POS themselves."


You mean they aren't already doing that? 😄


----------



## Rifleman62

The GG, the CDS. Does that take the taxpayers focus on Trudeau's failure to deliver vaccines? Doubt it wasn't deliberately planned to drop when needed by the Liberals. Nothing is not known in Ottawa included the marital status of the PM.


----------



## mariomike

Rifleman62 said:


> Nothing is not known in Ottawa included the marital status of the PM.


I read that in The Buffalo Chronicle.






						Sophie Gregoire has separated from Justin Trudeau | The Buffalo Chronicle
					






					buffalochronicle.com


----------



## Jarnhamar

Rifleman62 said:


> The GG, the CDS. Does that take the taxpayers focus on Trudeau's failure to deliver vaccines? Doubt it wasn't deliberately planned to drop when needed by the Liberals. Nothing is not known in Ottawa included the marital status of the PM.


I'm assuming it was sat on until Vance was replaced as CDS. 
Makes sense why Vance wasn't given the NATO job if they knew this was coming. 
Greasy.


----------



## MilEME09




----------



## Good2Golf

Rifleman62 said:


> ...Nothing is not known in Ottawa included the marital status of the PM.


...other than allegedly a pair of someone’s 🥜 in someone else’s 👜 due to previous infidelity...allegedly...


----------



## Kilted

HiTechComms said:


> Well this is why I follow the Billy Graham rule.


A lot of people would have avoided a lot of trouble if they followed this.


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You mean they aren't already doing that? 😄


Call me a dreamer.


----------



## OldSolduer

We are all human.  We make rules and laws and regulations so we behave in a somewhat appropriate fashion. 

IMO the laws of nature and what's in our DNA will outweigh the laws we make as people. This is one of those cases.


----------



## MJP

OldSolduer said:


> We are all human.  We make rules and laws and regulations so we behave in a somewhat appropriate fashion.
> 
> IMO the laws of nature and what's in our DNA will outweigh the laws we make as people. This is one of those cases.


Yea no.  I respect your opinion and understand what you are saying but lots of people live honourable lifes completing resisting "nature's" urges and act like normal human beings.

I chalk this up to nurture as he clearly felt that it was appropriate to respond in the manner he allegedly did.  So it is clear, by nurture, I am calling out the CAF writ large that has allowed this behaviour to percolate to the point that a MGen thought that was an appropriate email to send ( allegedly).  Even as a joke that email has no place in the CAF.

There is a reason we have Op HONOUR and hateful conduct as an ongoing priority, as we have trouble removing it from our culture through years of silent acceptance.  Culture is hard to change and takes years.  Having these efforts undercut by the very soldier that should be leading the charge is not going to help.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MJP said:


> Yea no.  I respect your opinion and understand what you are saying but lots of people live honourable lifes completing resisting "nature's" urges and act like normal human beings.
> 
> I chalk this up to nurture as he clearly felt that it was appropriate to respond in the manner he allegedly did.  So it is clear, by nurture, I am calling out the CAF writ large that has allowed this behaviour to percolate to the point that a MGen thought that was an appropriate email to send ( allegedly).  Even as a joke that email has no place in the CAF.
> 
> There is a reason we have Op HONOUR and hateful conduct as an ongoing priority, as we have trouble removing it from our culture through years of silent acceptance.  Culture is hard to change and takes years.  Having these efforts undercut by the very soldier that should be leading the charge is not going to help.


There is also a pattern establishment which is the real problem.  Everyone makes bad judgement calls, they learn from them and carry on.  It's when they don't that it becomes an issue.

It's sad because General Vance was a warfighter and by all accounts, an outstanding student of war.  This will unfortunately be what he is remembered for though.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I have a couple of points/observations.  I am not excusing the alleged behaviour however, there are things to consider:

1- I don't think I have ever seen a Major-General managing his own emails.  Could this have come from his EA or AA?
2- I find it odd that a Corporal is asking for advice on career to a Major-General (although the MSM could have the rank wrong). 
3- We also have to put this in context. These kids of "jokes" were tolerated, wrongly, a lot more back in 2012. We cannot entirely judge his actions of 2012 against the 2021 backdrop.

I sincerely hope there is an investigation in the matter if only to find the truth.


----------



## NavyShooter

mariomike said:


> I bet it's been that way since time immemorial.


This is all that came to mind...








mariomike said:


> I bet it's been that way since time immemorial.





Jarnhamar said:


> I think you're technically right. But I think if you perused through DAOD 5019-1 & 7021-1 you might find some borderline violations as well.
> 
> I've seen some cpls in relationships with WOs and MWOs attempt to, and in some cases succeed to, throw around the weight of their relationships. It's awkward as hell, especially when leadership goes out of their way to turn a blind eye to it and JNCOs are the ones with the courage to say something.
> 
> Is a troop or young officer that a MGen or CDS dating or messing around with going to get preferential treatment? Absolutely. We've all seen how junior - mid level officers gush and trip and fall all over themselves when there's a high ranking officer visiting. No officer is going to play Russian roulette with their career by upsetting someone a general is dating.


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:


> I have a couple of points/observations.  I am not excusing the alleged behaviour however, there are things to consider:
> 
> 1- I don't think I have ever seen a Major-General managing his own emails.  Could this have come from his EA or AA?
> 2- I find it odd that a Corporal is asking for advice on career to a Major-General (although the MSM could have the rank wrong).
> 3- We also have to put this in context. These kids of "jokes" were tolerated, wrongly, a lot more back in 2012. We cannot entirely judge his actions of 2012 against the 2021 backdrop.
> 
> I sincerely hope there is an investigation in the matter if only to find the truth.



A few thoughts:

1 - Have written emails for senior pers, but some items do get them personally drafting replies.  So not particularly unusual.
2 - Depending on the unit, there can be close relationships between different ranks; it is not all that odd for senior CAF members to offer to help or advise more junior ones with their careers.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:


> 2 - Depending on the unit, there can be close relationships between different ranks; it is not all that odd for senior CAF members to offer to help or advise more junior ones with their careers.


Sure, I'll buy that, but there's a bigger point. The sexually harassing response by that senior CAF member on a Corporal who highly likely thought he was genuine in his offer to provide her advice is where a line was not just crossed, but spit on. It's this exact conduct that erodes the trust in the leadership of the CAF that a General Officer would act in such a manner.



SupersonicMax said:


> 3- We also have to put this in context. These kids of "jokes" were tolerated, wrongly, a lot more back in 2012. We cannot entirely judge his actions of 2012 against the 2021 backdrop.


This specific comment was sexual harassment in 2012, much as it's sexual harassment now. This isn't 2 folks fairly close in rank where it could be joke between friends out of context.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PuckChaser said:


> This specific comment was sexual harassment in 2012, much as it's sexual harassment now. This isn't 2 folks fairly close in rank where it could be joke between friends out of context.


Then let’s go back in all emails from 2012 and investigate all who could have construed harassment.  Yes, it was reprehensible, even by 2012 standards.  But it was more tolerated and sometimes even accepted.  Who tells you they didn’t have some form of friendly relationship?  Going direct to a MGen for career advice is weird to me.  Even at my rank, I would need to know the person personally or professionally well to engage them.


----------



## ABSigs

dapaterson said:


> A few thoughts:
> 
> 1 - Have written emails for senior pers, but some items do get them personally drafting replies.  So not particularly unusual.
> 2 - Depending on the unit, there can be close relationships between different ranks; it is not all that odd for senior CAF members to offer to help or advise more junior ones with their careers.


If the Cpl felt comfortable reaching out directly to a MGen there had to have been a relationship already established or he would have had have indicated in some way that this was acceptable.  The fact he responded would indicate that he thought this was OK.
While that kind of "joke" may have been tolerated in the 2012 timeframe, I suggest totally inappropriate for a MGen to make that kind of comment to a Cpl, even in 2012.


----------



## PuckChaser

SupersonicMax said:


> Then let’s go back in all emails from 2012 and investigate all who could have construed harassment.  Yes, it was reprehensible, even by 2012 standards.  But it was more tolerated and sometimes even accepted.  Who tells you they didn’t have some form of friendly relationship?  Going direct to a MGen for career advice is weird to me.  Even at my rank, I would need to know the person personally or professionally well to engage them.


Yeah it is wierd with that rank disparity, but regardless of any personal relationship the comment was completely out of line with the facts that are out there. You're looking for assumptions to "whitewash" this or make it seem OK. If we're going to make assumptions, they can easily go the other way. It's possible Gen Vance used his rank and position to make a Cpl he felt attracted to comfortable enough to email him directly asking for career advice, and used that opportunity to make a sexual advance. A sexual advance that was unwanted as evidenced in the complaint to the Ombudsman.

If a BGen can't figure out the line between someone asking for professional career advice and a personal email, then I submit to you they shouldn't be a General Officer. It's called military bearing, and we enforce it on our young NCMs all the time. I also say this as I personally deal with plenty of superior officers day to day using first names, but know when it's time to turn that military bearing on.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I get the feeling the MGen and Cpl email fiasco has allot more to it than what's on the surface, or being reported so far.  And I want to believe that there had to have been a previously established relationship of some sort, be it romantic or professional or a mix of both. 

I met Vance allot while I was out at the Pajiway District Center.  He was there all the time with his cohort.  I always found him genuine and approachable.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Have to disagree about the joke thing.

Those "jokes" aren't jokes at all, whether it's back in 2012 or 10 years before that.  It's a sexual advance where the perpetrator calls it a joke in a lame attempt to cover up their inappropriate advance/harassment by calling it a joke.

Workplace sexual harassment 101.

It may be more accurate to say sexual harassment  was more accepted back then, but everyone knew what it was.

General Vance's first reaction appears to have been to lie about it then knowing he was caught call back to give an excuse we've (he's) been telling people isn't an excuse for the last 6 years.


----------



## Mediman14

YZT580 said:


> Wonder what Norman is thinking?


Just wondering, what ever happen to Norman after the case was dropped?


----------



## YZT580

retired with a payout.  He was just in the news suggesting that the Navy start bracing itself for blowback on the price of the new fleet.  Perhaps a new career as GG?  Now that would demonstrate Justin's capacity for justice.


----------



## Mediman14

daftandbarmy said:


> No, but some get 'drivers'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kay Summersby - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Yes, some do get drivers. Yet some get officers! I remember during one of my postings, the CMP dropped by a chat, there was some suggestions made to him, in return he got his LCol to send a email to whoever to make changes. Doesn't that count as a assistant? Perhaps a overpaid, glorified assistant!


----------



## Mediman14

YZT580 said:


> retired with a payout.  He was just in the news suggesting that the Navy start bracing itself for blowback on the price of the new fleet.  Perhaps a new career as GG?  Now that would demonstrate Justin's capacity for justice.


That certainly would!! I once met Norman during my posting on the Iroquois. From what I remember, he was the only officer invited into the Jnr mess. He seemed pretty decent at the time.


----------



## Mediman14

dapaterson said:


> 2 - Depending on the unit, there can be close relationships between different ranks; it is not all that odd for senior CAF members to offer to help or advise more junior ones with their careers.


I always seen this happen.  The only thing is that there was always some type of involvement in the more Junior PER's. I always hated it, and fought this all the time. I have seen first year Cpl's get immediate, I have seen first year MCpl's get immediate. That was the way it was all the time.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Mediman14 said:


> I always seen this happen.  The only thing is that there was always some type of involvement in the more Junior PER's. I always hated it, and fought this all the time. I have seen first year Cpl's get immediate, I have seen first year MCpl's get immediate. That was the way it was all the time.



Rampant favouritism fuelled by some first class professional 'sucking up',  then?


----------



## Mediman14

daftandbarmy said:


> Rampant favouritism fuelled by some first class professional 'sucking up',  then?


Rampant favouritism at play. Asking for advice on how to improve within your occupation is a way of saying to some people, "How much you get to shine at work depends on who you get close to"!


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I worked as a Corporal at an army HQ,  I had face to face meetings with the MGen in charge at the time. I never just popped into his office and he would share a joke with me. I was always sent there after the request for whatever came down the COC. I would walk there, have him sign for his Pay Cheque and I would salute and leave.  Cpl and MGen do not mix outside of work or bosses night at the JR rank Mess.  Just wrong but I am old army I guess and my lack of current army  knowledge is limited.


----------



## Haggis

YZT580 said:


> (VAdm Norman) retired with a payout.  He was just in the news suggesting that the Navy start bracing itself for blowback on the price of the new fleet.  Perhaps a new career as GG?  Now that would demonstrate Justin's capacity for justice.


Not a chance.  The PM convicted him in the court of public opinion.


----------



## Kat Stevens

daftandbarmy said:


> Rampant favouritism fuelled by some first class professional 'sucking up',  then?


You could go far in my beloved corps by drinking with the right people and joining the applicable fraternal order.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kat Stevens said:


> You could go far in my beloved corps by drinking with the right people and joining the applicable fraternal order.


----------



## HiTechComms

Isn't it common sense not to shat where you eat?


----------



## Blackadder1916

HiTechComms said:


> Isn't it common sense not to shat where you eat?



Blood flow - big head, little head . . .


----------



## HiTechComms

Blackadder1916 said:


> Blood flow - big head, little head . . .


By that logic I don't think I have a penis.


----------



## The Bread Guy

HiTechComms said:


> Isn't it common sense not to shat where you eat?


Common sense:  not always as common as one would think ...


----------



## Weinie

FJAG will likely weigh in here, and I welcome his experience/perspective.

The CDS is a Governor in Council appt. Don't know what that means in terms of who has authority/responsibility/accountability to investigate misconduct for this, but those three ARA's could all have significantly different tracks/outcomes.

The basic premise of the NDA is exercised under the authority of the CDS, who by virtue of rank, can apply judgement to any subordinate as deemed appropriate by the findings of a CM. Should Gen Vance be court-martialed, can the current CDS exert punishment over someone of equal rank?

If not a CM, and they opt for a civilian option, as in the case of the GG recently, what powers does a third party have to compel testimony? 

I'm not much of a grab popcorn and watch guy, but may have to develop the habit.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Weinie said:


> I'm not much of a grab popcorn and watch guy, but may have to develop the habit.


I'm thinking if Admiral McDonald doesn't take it seriously he's going to immediately loose the respect of the CAF.


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm thinking if Admiral McDonald doesn't take it seriously he's going to immediately loose the respect of the CAF.


Or, by virtue of it being a Governor in Council appointment, (and subsequent non-CAF investigation) he gets a hard bye into the finals where, after all the hard work and decisions are made, can wax euphoric. There are advantages and disadvantages for him in both of these scenarios.


----------



## Ostrozac

Weinie said:


> Should Gen Vance be court-martialed, can the current CDS exert punishment over someone of equal rank?


Probably, but he might have to be on the court-martial panel itself, along with four other GO/FOs.

From the NDA:
_Ranks for trial of brigadier-general or above
If the accused person is of or above the rank of brigadier-general, the senior member of the panel must be an officer of or above the rank of the accused person and the other members of the panel must be of or above the rank of colonel._

Putting aside whether it would be a good use of the taxpayers time and money to commit the time of 5 General Officers, including the CDS, during an ongoing global crisis, there’s real damage to be done. It really doesn’t matter what happens to now-Mister Vance. He is, in effect, expendable. The problem is the potential damage to the institution — coming up with detailed procedures for “Contingency plan for when our most senior General is a suspected sex offender” harms the credibility of the office, just as it did when we had to handle the “What do we do when the Chief Military Judge likes to commit fraud on his travel claims”. Just as with discipline for the GG, this forces us to ask questions that are usually left unasked.


----------



## Weinie

Ostrozac said:


> Probably, but he might have to be on the court-martial panel itself, along with four other GO/FOs.
> 
> From the NDA:
> _Ranks for trial of brigadier-general or above_
> *If the accused person is of or above the rank of brigadier-general, the senior member of the panel must be an officer of or above the rank of the accused person*_ and the other members of the panel must be of or above the rank of colonel._
> 
> Putting aside whether it would be a good use of the taxpayers time and money to commit the time of 5 General Officers, including the CDS, during an ongoing global crisis, there’s real damage to be done. It really doesn’t matter what happens to now-Mister Vance. He is, in effect, expendable. The problem is the potential damage to the institution — coming up with detailed procedures for “Contingency plan for when our most senior General is a suspected sex offender” harms the credibility of the office, just as it did when we had to handle the “What do we do when the Chief Military Judge likes to commit fraud on his travel claims”. Just as with discipline for the GG, this forces us to ask questions that are usually left unasked.


Thus my point. But now we *have* to ask the questions, and *must* answer them, *during a global crisis.*

I have lived through various Defence/CAF scandals. Those that got short shrift on the front end from the CoC generally came back to bite us in the arse, and rightly so. Had you asked me as a Public Affairs Officer in 2010 to list the 1000 worst things that could happen to damage/erode CAF credibility, I would never have guessed in a million years that the Wing Commander in Trenton would turn out to be a serial rapist and murderer, but that happened. It was a precedent in the CAF as well, one that we had to deal with to prevent real damage to the institution. I believe we did so effectively.

The allegations against the former CDS obviously don't compare to the scale of Russell Williams heinous acts, but they still have the very real ability to shake institutional confidence, both internally and externally.

A civilian process simplifies some things re the above, but then lacks the concomitant authority to compel witnesses/testimony. I don't begrudge those who will have to decide on the way forward.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Is he in fact, Mr Vance? No leave to burn off? No paperwork to clean up? Also, does the NDA not also allow for charging of someone already released?


----------



## FJAG

Weinie said:


> FJAG will likely weigh in here, and I welcome his experience/perspective.
> 
> The CDS is a Governor in Council appt. Don't know what that means in terms of who has authority/responsibility/accountability to investigate misconduct for this, but those three ARA's could all have significantly different tracks/outcomes.


The fact that the CDS is a GoC appointment doesn't matter, the CDS is still a member of the CAF and standard procedures for the investigation still apply. 

Before the whole Dutil thing I would have thought this matter wouldn't have been an issue but since then I've basically comes to the conclusion that there are a number of defects in the system which could be easily remedied by providing for an ad hoc superior court judge from one of the civilian criminal courts handle the case (even from the Federal Court although their criminal experience at the trial level is very limited).

I don't really see a superior officer issue because the military court is independent of the chain of command (when the CoC isn't making up dumb administrative policies which backhandedly defeat that) and the fact that the individual under investigation is now an ex-CDS.

My guess is that the investigation will continue under the CFNIS and, if appropriate, charges could be preferred through the ordinary course by either the CFNIS or DMP.


Weinie said:


> The basic premise of the NDA is exercised under the authority of the CDS, who by virtue of rank, can apply judgement to any subordinate as deemed appropriate by the findings of a CM. Should Gen Vance be court-martialed, can the current CDS exert punishment over someone of equal rank?


The superintendence of the military justice system is in the hands of the JAG under NDA s9.2(1). The chain of command has by and large been removed from the convening authority aspect of the preferral of charges to CM responsibility. Judgement as to conviction and sentence comes through the trial judge, CMAC and SCC. There are some elements that remain with the CoC (such as being review authorities after conviction under NDA s 249(1)-(4) seq.) However, with him being an ex-CDS, those don't really matter. 
On the other hand, I can see the review authority provisions being a large impediment to the trial of a sitting CDS as to who would be able to exercise that function. Like I said, the Dutil issued opened up a large can of procedural worms that would apply equally to a CDS and which need resolving.


Weinie said:


> If not a CM, and they opt for a civilian option, as in the case of the GG recently, what powers does a third party have to compel testimony?


Under the current laws, there is no ability to refer to a civilian court unless the offence is one that would be a civilian offence as much as a military one and the prosecutors agree on who has jurisdiction. The allegations that I have seen in the papers do not suggest any civilian criminal offence.


Weinie said:


> I'm not much of a grab popcorn and watch guy, but may have to develop the habit.


Yeah. I see that. Bottom line - the CAF has another black eye that it will be wearing for quite a while.

🍻


----------



## FJAG

Fishbone Jones said:


> Is he in fact, Mr Vance? No leave to burn off? No paperwork to clean up? Also, does the NDA not also allow for charging of someone already released?


Yes it does if the offence was committed while serving. There is a limitation period of 6 months for the very minor offences but no limitation for all the others.


----------



## ballz

Weinie said:


> The allegations against the former CDS obviously don't compare to the scale of Russell Williams heinous acts, but they still have the very real ability to shake institutional confidence, both internally and externally.



The harm to institutional confidence looks like it may have already been done by those who could have addressed it and didn't, if what's been coming out today about these issues having been raised numerous times before and not addressed proves to be true. Internally, it will confirm to soldiers that those at the higher ranks are never held accountable and never held to the same standard as they are. At this point, if the allegations do prove legit, the opportunity to be credible may have come and gone.

Externally, maybe there is some way to salvage some credibility still available, i.e. how the investigation is handled, how they go about prosecuting, etc.... _maybe_ the public will forget that this is only happening in the light of receiving bad press and not because of integrity, but the troops won't.


----------



## lenaitch

FJAG said:


> I don't really see a superior officer issue because the *military court is independent of the chain of command* (when the CoC isn't making up dumb administrative policies which backhandedly defeat that) and the fact that the individual under investigation is now an ex-CDS.


Isn't  that question currently before the SCOC?


----------



## FJAG

lenaitch said:


> Isn't  that question currently before the SCOC?


I was in the legal branch from 1984 to 2009. We were always before the CMAC or the SCC on that issue. It's the first plea in bar of trial that they teach at the Director of Defence Counsel Services U.     I never let it worry me anymore until the decision comes down so that the legislative drafting branch can take another kick at the cat to make the next one bullet proof.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

Rory Fowler has had some rather pointed observations about those issues... and some very, very sloppy administrative law work.






						Blog – The Law Office of Rory G Fowler
					

Just another WordPress site




					roryfowlerlaw.com


----------



## Jarnhamar

ballz said:


> The harm to institutional confidence looks like it may have already been done by those who could have addressed it and didn't, if what's been coming out today about these issues having been raised numerous times before and not addressed proves to be true. Internally, it will confirm to soldiers that those at the higher ranks are never held accountable and never held to the same standard as they are. At this point, if the allegations do prove legit, the opportunity to be credible may have come and gone.
> 
> Externally, maybe there is some way to salvage some credibility still available, i.e. how the investigation is handled, how they go about prosecuting, etc.... _maybe_ the public will forget that this is only happening in the light of receiving bad press and not because of integrity, but the troops won't.



We can just force soldiers to do a DLN course on reporting harassment which is due by EOP the next day so we can give thumbs up all around. Good work defense team.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:


> Rory Fowler has had some rather pointed observations about those issues... and some very, very sloppy administrative law work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blog – The Law Office of Rory G Fowler
> 
> 
> Just another WordPress site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roryfowlerlaw.com


Thanks for the link. By reading just a few of his posts, our leadership seems to have no clue how to implement policy or directives with any concrete legal footing. If a person was bloody minded and rich enough, they could bring the whole house of cards tumbling down by just challenging the legality of many directives within the CAF.


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:


> Thanks for the link. By reading just a few of his posts, our leadership seems to have no clue how to implement policy or directives with any concrete legal footing. If a person was bloody minded and rich enough, they could bring the whole house of cards tumbling down by just challenging the legality of many directives within the CAF.


Legislative changes work slowly at the best of times.

This hasn't been the best of times.

🍻


----------



## The Bread Guy

Next step ....


> *The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) is opening a probe into the allegations of inappropriate behaviour against former chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance*. Global News can also confirm the female subordinate who says she had an intimate relationship with Vance while he was chief of defence staff had asked to meet with military police earlier in the day. “We can confirm the CFNIS is investigating this matter,” said a spokesperson for the military. “In order to preserve the integrity of the investigative process, no additional information can be provided at this time.” ...


----------



## MilEME09

Liberal, Conservative governments were made aware of concerns and allegations against Vance: sources
		


Oh boy this gets interesting


----------



## ABSigs

MilEME09 said:


> Liberal, Conservative governments were made aware of concerns and allegations against Vance: sources
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy this gets interesting


Yuup. I guess the fact that he was married at time of his relationship with the US LCol wasn't a factor, and that his wife at the time was the "other woman" from his first marriage. SMFH


----------



## Good2Golf

So MND told PCO, but PCO didn’t think the MND’s information was sufficient to take action...did PCO advise MND it needed more information? Was MND told yet chose to not provide any additional information?


----------



## daftandbarmy

ABSigs said:


> Yuup. I guess the fact that he was married at time of his relationship with the US LCol wasn't a factor, and that his wife at the time was the "other woman" from his first marriage. SMFH


----------



## Jarnhamar

occa said:


> I hate being an allegedly "prick" but....


Shouldn't you be hunting down Navalny protestors or something?
​


----------



## Weinie

I wonder if Gen Vance has hired a lawyer yet.....heard some good things about Marie Henein.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> I wonder if Gen Vance has hired a lawyer yet.....heard some good things about Marie Henein.


If it weren’t for the Non-Compete Clause with Norman....


----------



## MilEME09

These jokes just keep coming


----------



## OldSolduer

This keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. SO you are all telling me that Operation Honour, which I took seriously, was in reality a great big game of pretend?

We counselled soldiers that this sort of behavior - especially where there was a huge discrepancy in rank - was improper. Was I mistaken??

We had one of those CO's vignettes where the Sgt was taking advantage of a recruit. Everyone in the room thought it was a clear cut case of harassment until they found out it was a woman doing the harassing. Then the jokes started - and I stepped in. My question was " what if that private was your daughter or wife and the harasser was male?" 

Mic drop. Dead silence.
Rant ends.


----------



## Haggis

During my Operation HONOUR cascade training, I became quite upset when two majors could not see that one of the scenarios put forward for discussion was clearly describing not only inappropriate sexualized conduct but the criminal offence of assault.


----------



## The Bread Guy

OldSolduer said:


> ... SO you are all telling me that Operation Honour, which I took seriously, was in reality a great big game of pretend? ...


Implementation issues aside, trying to make sure troops are jerked about less than in the past is rarely a bad thing, even if implemented & driven by someone who .... well ... allegedly had his own case studies in the making.  It also sounds like you took away the right lessons, so there's that ....


----------



## Weinie

ABSigs said:


> Yuup. I guess the fact that he was married *at time of his relationship with the US LCol wasn't a factor*, and that his wife at the time was the "other woman" from his first marriage. SMFH


I was on a course in the US in 1997 and was astonished to be told that adultery was an offence under the US UCMJ and that punishment often resulted in dismissal. I believe my reaction was something like " If that applied in Canada, we would be kicking out half our military every year."


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> This keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. SO you are all telling me that Operation Honour, which I took seriously, was in reality a great big game of pretend?


Army wisdom. They used to send people who committed harassment in a unit on the harassment advisor course. Kind of a punishment and "fix" all in one.

Of course it turned into a running joke where the worst offenders were now the advisors who people have to report harassment to.
"I'm allowed to harass people I'm the harassment advisor yuk yuk"

If you look at how we treated harassment in the military (or army) it makes sense why Vance was put in charge of Op Honour.


----------



## Kat Stevens

The loudest shouter against something normally has something to hide, "methinks he doth protest too much".


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> So MND told PCO, but PCO didn’t think the MND’s information was sufficient to take action...did PCO advise MND it needed more information? Was MND told yet chose to not provide any additional information?


Fortunately the PCO is the bastion of ethical decision making, so if they didn't think it was sufficient to take action we can rest assured everything was fine.


----------



## hattrick72

Weinie said:


> I was on a course in the US in 1997 and was astonished to be told that adultery was an offence under the US UCMJ and that punishment often resulted in dismissal. I believe my reaction was something like " If that applied in Canada, we would be kicking out half our military every year."


Something about ethical standards..... We just don't have the numbers. Their COs can also kick you out for lying and their CO's can be replaced in quick fashion when things are not meeting standard.


----------



## Weinie

hattrick72 said:


> Something about* ethical standards.*.... We just don't have the *numbers.* Their COs can also kick you out for lying and their CO's can be replaced in quick fashion when things are not meeting standard.


I would suggest that ethical standards and numbers were directly related to the number of followers of Judeo-Christian values in the US vs Canada. We have been far more secular (with the exception of Quebec, which finally came around in the 1960's/1970s) than the US, and that continues to influence their interpretation/application of the UCMJ.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Weinie said:


> I was on a course in the US in 1997 and was astonished to be told that adultery was an offence under the US UCMJ and that punishment often resulted in dismissal. I believe my reaction was something like " If that applied in Canada, we would be kicking out half our military every year."



Likewise I was on course with the US Army over thirty years ago; probably half of the approx 240 students on the course were female (my platoon, one of four, had 62 in total, 30 were female - Medical Dept, lots of nurses) so there were numerous opportunities during the several months for hanky and panky.  While the general motto was don't fool around within 100 miles of the flagpole, it was, to use a phrase that would not be acceptable today, a target rich environment.  Adultery, though frowned upon, was not uncommon but the Army didn't take any action unless it was "officially" brought to their notice.  There were a few cases when one of the parties to the relationship wanted to continue it following graduation while the other party did not - they just wanted to go home to their family.  One way that was dealt with was by friends of the one who didn't want to continue (usually the woman) having a few short, sharp words with the other party.  In one instance, when the individual who wanted to continue the relationship became a pest to the other, she made the mistake of bringing the harassment to the attention of her faculty advisor.   They were both brought up on charges of adultery, even though only one (the man) was married.


----------



## FJAG

Weinie said:


> I was on a course in the US in 1997 and was astonished to be told that adultery was an offence under the US UCMJ and that punishment often resulted in dismissal. I believe my reaction was something like " If that applied in Canada, we would be kicking out half our military every year."


Adultery is actually not provided for under Title 10 of the US Code within which the core of the UCMJ is contained. What creates the foundation of an offence out of adultery is at 10 U.S.C. § 934 article 134 which is very similar to our section 129 of the NDA. Article 134 reads:



> *Article 134. General article*:
> Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.


The US Military provides a Manual Of Courts Martial which is revised every few years and:



> The _*Manual for Courts-Martial*_ (_*MCM*_) is the official guide to the conduct of courts-martial in the United States military. An Executive Order of the President of the United States, the _MCM_ details and expands on the military law established in the statute Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


In a way it is something like our QR&O Vol 2 Disciplinary but it goes much further than mere procedure in that in that it deals with a variety of offences that build on various provisions in Title 10. (It's 936 pages long) With respect to Article 134 it provides at para 62 of Part IV (see page IV-117 of the current 2016 issue of the MCM)  what all of the legal elements of the offence of adultery are. It's quite comprehensive for anyone that wants to have a read of it.

In short, adultery is considered by the US military as an offence to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

Hmm.  When a Canadian is posted to the US and an American unit, are they generally subject to the UCMJ?  (Obviously someone posted to an embassy would be in a different situation, as Cpl McGregor learned.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Hmm.  When a Canadian is posted to the US and an American unit, are they generally subject to the UCMJ?  (Obviously someone posted to an embassy would be in a different situation, as Cpl McGregor learned.


I'm not an expert on the UCMJ by any stretch but it does have provisions respecting jurisdiction over the person like (but different from) the ones in the NDA.  10 U.S. Code § 802 - Art. 2. provides for jurisdiction and includes:


> (10) In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.





> (11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.


Again, the NDA has similar provisions.

I would expect that any CF soldier in the US would be subject at a minimum to the NATO SOFA which provides that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the sending state has priority re offenses done in the course of duties. But it does get fuzzy. One could probably write a university dissertation on the subject but I won't.   

As an aside I found a more recent version of the MCM for 2019 here.

🍻


----------



## Weinie

FJAG said:


> Adultery is actually not provided for under Title 10 of the US Code within which the core of the UCMJ is contained. What creates the foundation of an offence out of adultery is at 10 U.S.C. § 934 *article 134 which is very similar to our section 129 of the NDA*. Article 134 reads:
> 
> 
> The US Military provides a Manual Of Courts Martial which is revised every few years and:
> 
> 
> In a way it is something like our QR&O Vol 2 Disciplinary but it goes much further than mere procedure in that in that it deals with a variety of offences that build on various provisions in Title 10. (It's 936 pages long) With respect to Article 134 it provides at para 62 of Part IV (see page IV-117 of the current 2016 issue of the MCM)  what all of the legal elements of the offence of adultery are. It's quite comprehensive for anyone that wants to have a read of it.
> 
> In short, adultery is considered by the US military as an offence to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
> 
> 🍻


*It is explained thusly,  and far more specifically than NDA 129:*

The military’s prohibition on adultery is stated in Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which makes adultery a crime when legal criteria, known as “elements,” have all been met. There are three specific elements:

Adultery and Article 134 of the UCMJ: Elements​(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

The first two elements are self-explanatory; the third is more complex. The “explanation” part of Article 134 identifies several factors military commanders should consider, including whether the soldier or his or her sexual partner were “legally separated.” A legal separation involves a signed a formal separation agreement with a spouse or a court-ordered of separation issued by the state.

While being legally separated weighs into whether a sexual relationship violates Article 134, it is not the only consideration. Article 134 "explanations" identifies other factors for commanders including:


The rank and position of the parties involved
The impact on the military unit
The potential misuse of government time or resources to facilitate the prohibited conduct
Whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other UCMJ violations

Adultery and Article 134 of the UCMJ: Explanation​(1) Nature of offense. Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member.

(2) Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember.

Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem. While adulterous conduct that is private and discreet in nature may not be service discrediting by this standard, under the circumstances, it may be determined to be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Commanders should consider all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors, when determining whether adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order and discipline or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces:


(a) The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position;

(b) The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces;

(c) The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces;

(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;

(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;

(f) Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ;

(g) The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency;

(h) Whether the accused or co-actor was legally separated; and

(i) Whether the adulterous misconduct involves an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in time.

(3) Marriage: A marriage exists until it is dissolved in accordance with the laws of a competent state or foreign jurisdiction.

(4) Mistake of fact: A defense of mistake of fact exists if the accused had an honest and reasonable belief either that the accused and the co-actor were both unmarried, or that they were lawfully married to each other. If this defense is raised by the evidence, then the burden of proof is upon the United States to establish that the accused's belief was unreasonable or not honest.".

My point is that one can carry on an adulterous relationship within the CAF and not contravene NDA 129. The restrictions in the UCMJ are far more constraining.


----------



## hattrick72

Weinie said:


> I would suggest that ethical standards and numbers were directly related to the number of followers of Judeo-Christian values in the US vs Canada. We have been far more secular (with the exception of Quebec, which finally came around in the 1960's/1970s) than the US, and that continues to influence their interpretation/application of the UCMJ.


I am suggesting that we lack the fortitude to do what is right and hold people accountable for their actions or lack of actions. Some would say we lack the numbers, others would say we lack the ability to replace quick enough as the posting budget wouldn't support, some would just rationalise the behaviour away (that is my top Cpl/Sgt/Maj etc.) And it was a one time thing. The list of reasons is too exhaustive to list. 

Here is an example:

A Jr officer or SNCO gets caught bringing their own liquor into a mess during a unit Christmas party. The Cpl running the mess for the event finds the flask, and approaches the CO of the host unit. The Cpl shutdown the event and sent everyone home (2200hrs). The CO argued with the Cpl stating he/she would like the party to continue and that she/he would be better to handle the situation on his/her own at a later time. The Cpl held their ground and shut the event down. 

The CO was already furious, a member of the unit approached the CO to report that they overheard the Cpl state, "I am going to shut this event down early, because this unit left the mess a shit show last year." 

An email was sent out unit wide that said: 
1. The Lt that left the flask out came forward, I am satisfied with this and nothing further will be administered (charges or administrative measures).
2. If anyone else heard the Cpl say they were going to shut the party down I want you to come forward. 
3. I will be raising this issue with the mess and the Cpl will be held accountable for their actions/removed from their job. 

Another email came out next week that said, the mess did not remove the Cpl nor did they punish the member. So we will not be participating in that mess going forward and that includes the Soldiers Dinner being held there next week. 

Now, administrative measures are nobody else business other than the members and the direct CoC above them. That being said both Lt's were promoted to Capt very shortly after that (one was a week later, the other six weeks later). The Capt the was promoted first was put in charge of the Soldiers Dinner that the unit held in March to replace the one they cancelled.

So how does this tie into what is being discussed; given the outcomes, lost Christmas party, broken liquor laws, lost Soldiers Dinner (consequent of CO decision), nobody was held accountable for their actions. 

The fact is, our members are not aware of avenues to report outside CoC. Sometimes the avenue doesn't really exist or is hairy, such as needing the PCO to act, in the Generals case, it could have been reported to the CDS before they were appointed. 

The reason it wasn't is because too many people worry about losing their next promotion if they speak up, even when they know they are right. 

Not one SNCO or Major and above challenged the CO on their decision to cancel a very important tradition that should've superceded their emotion. None of them brought it to the OCC attention and if they did nothing happened. 

This is a perpetual issue that a lot of units, commands face and it is the reason we can't overcome harassment, op honour, etc. 

Once we figure out that morale and discipline improves when our best can be held accountable and allowed to progress if they react and fix the shortcomings appropriately, the rest should fall in place. The ones that don't will have leaders that went through being held accountable and won't rationalise the behaviour away with the thought; they were given a pass in a similar instance and look at where I am now. 

To me the story isn't that the CDS may have or may not have acted inappropriately. The story is we never tried to investigate when it was brought up originally.


----------



## daftandbarmy

hattrick72 said:


> I am suggesting that we lack the fortitude to do what is right and hold people accountable for their actions or lack of actions. Some would say we lack the numbers, others would say we lack the ability to replace quick enough as the posting budget wouldn't support, some would just rationalise the behaviour away (that is my top Cpl/Sgt/Maj etc.) And it was a one time thing. The list of reasons is too exhaustive to list.
> 
> Here is an example:
> 
> A Jr officer or SNCO gets caught bringing their own liquor into a mess during a unit Christmas party. The Cpl running the mess for the event finds the flask, and approaches the CO of the host unit. The Cpl shutdown the event and sent everyone home (2200hrs). The CO argued with the Cpl stating he/she would like the party to continue and that she/he would be better to handle the situation on his/her own at a later time. The Cpl held their ground and shut the event down.
> 
> The CO was already furious, a member of the unit approached the CO to report that they overheard the Cpl state, "I am going to shut this event down early, because this unit left the mess a shit show last year."
> 
> An email was sent out unit wide that said:
> 1. The Lt that left the flask out came forward, I am satisfied with this and nothing further will be administered (charges or administrative measures).
> 2. If anyone else heard the Cpl say they were going to shut the party down I want you to come forward.
> 3. I will be raising this issue with the mess and the Cpl will be held accountable for their actions/removed from their job.
> 
> Another email came out next week that said, the mess did not remove the Cpl nor did they punish the member. So we will not be participating in that mess going forward and that includes the Soldiers Dinner being held there next week.
> 
> Now, administrative measures are nobody else business other than the members and the direct CoC above them. That being said both Lt's were promoted to Capt very shortly after that (one was a week later, the other six weeks later). The Capt the was promoted first was put in charge of the Soldiers Dinner that the unit held in March to replace the one they cancelled.
> 
> So how does this tie into what is being discussed; given the outcomes, lost Christmas party, broken liquor laws, lost Soldiers Dinner (consequent of CO decision), nobody was held accountable for their actions.
> 
> The fact is, our members are not aware of avenues to report outside CoC. Sometimes the avenue doesn't really exist or is hairy, such as needing the PCO to act, in the Generals case, it could have been reported to the CDS before they were appointed.
> 
> The reason it wasn't is because too many people worry about losing their next promotion if they speak up, even when they know they are right.
> 
> Not one SNCO or Major and above challenged the CO on their decision to cancel a very important tradition that should've superceded their emotion. None of them brought it to the OCC attention and if they did nothing happened.
> 
> This is a perpetual issue that a lot of units, commands face and it is the reason we can't overcome harassment, op honour, etc.
> 
> Once we figure out that morale and discipline improves when our best can be held accountable and allowed to progress if they react and fix the shortcomings appropriately, the rest should fall in place. The ones that don't will have leaders that went through being held accountable and won't rationalise the behaviour away with the thought; they were given a pass in a similar instance and look at where I am now.
> 
> To me the story isn't that the CDS may have or may not have acted inappropriately. The story is we never tried to investigate when it was brought up originally.



Dude, I want that JR's PMC in my unit. 

As CO


----------



## Weinie

hattrick72 said:


> I am suggesting that we lack the fortitude to do what is right and hold people accountable for their actions or lack of actions. Some would say we lack the numbers, others would say we lack the ability to replace quick enough as the posting budget wouldn't support, some would just rationalise the behaviour away (that is my top Cpl/Sgt/Maj etc.) And it was a one time thing. The list of reasons is too exhaustive to list.
> 
> Here is an example:
> 
> A Jr officer or SNCO gets caught bringing their own liquor into a mess during a unit Christmas party. The Cpl running the mess for the event finds the flask, and approaches the CO of the host unit. The Cpl shutdown the event and sent everyone home (2200hrs). The CO argued with the Cpl stating he/she would like the party to continue and that she/he would be better to handle the situation on his/her own at a later time. The Cpl held their ground and shut the event down.
> 
> The CO was already furious, a member of the unit approached the CO to report that they overheard the Cpl state, "I am going to shut this event down early, because this unit left the mess a shit show last year."
> 
> An email was sent out unit wide that said:
> 1. The Lt that left the flask out came forward, I am satisfied with this and nothing further will be administered (charges or administrative measures).
> 2. If anyone else heard the Cpl say they were going to shut the party down I want you to come forward.
> 3. I will be raising this issue with the mess and the Cpl will be held accountable for their actions/removed from their job.
> 
> Another email came out next week that said, the mess did not remove the Cpl nor did they punish the member. So we will not be participating in that mess going forward and that includes the Soldiers Dinner being held there next week.
> 
> Now, administrative measures are nobody else business other than the members and the direct CoC above them. That being said both Lt's were promoted to Capt very shortly after that (one was a week later, the other six weeks later). The Capt the was promoted first was put in charge of the Soldiers Dinner that the unit held in March to replace the one they cancelled.
> 
> So how does this tie into what is being discussed; given the outcomes, lost Christmas party, broken liquor laws, lost Soldiers Dinner (consequent of CO decision), nobody was held accountable for their actions.
> 
> The fact is, our members are not aware of avenues to report outside CoC. Sometimes the avenue doesn't really exist or is hairy, such as needing the PCO to act, in the Generals case, it could have been reported to the CDS before they were appointed.
> 
> The reason it wasn't is because too many people worry about losing their next promotion if they speak up, even when they know they are right.
> 
> Not one SNCO or Major and above challenged the CO on their decision to cancel a very important tradition that should've superceded their emotion. None of them brought it to the OCC attention and if they did nothing happened.
> 
> This is a perpetual issue that a lot of units, commands face and it is the reason we can't overcome harassment, op honour, etc.
> 
> Once we figure out that morale and discipline improves when our best can be held accountable and allowed to progress if they react and fix the shortcomings appropriately, the rest should fall in place. The ones that don't will have leaders that went through being held accountable and won't rationalise the behaviour away with the thought; they were given a pass in a similar instance and look at where I am now.
> 
> To me the story isn't that the CDS may have or may not have acted inappropriately. The story is we never tried to investigate when it was brought up originally.


Ummmmmmmmmm.........OK. Good war story, sort of. 

My post was in response to your comparing US and Canadian military systems of justice, and perhaps how/why they differ.


----------



## Kilted

hattrick72 said:


> I am suggesting that we lack the fortitude to do what is right and hold people accountable for their actions or lack of actions. Some would say we lack the numbers, others would say we lack the ability to replace quick enough as the posting budget wouldn't support, some would just rationalise the behaviour away (that is my top Cpl/Sgt/Maj etc.) And it was a one time thing. The list of reasons is too exhaustive to list.
> 
> Here is an example:
> 
> A Jr officer or SNCO gets caught bringing their own liquor into a mess during a unit Christmas party. The Cpl running the mess for the event finds the flask, and approaches the CO of the host unit. The Cpl shutdown the event and sent everyone home (2200hrs). The CO argued with the Cpl stating he/she would like the party to continue and that she/he would be better to handle the situation on his/her own at a later time. The Cpl held their ground and shut the event down.
> 
> The CO was already furious, a member of the unit approached the CO to report that they overheard the Cpl state, "I am going to shut this event down early, because this unit left the mess a shit show last year."
> 
> An email was sent out unit wide that said:
> 1. The Lt that left the flask out came forward, I am satisfied with this and nothing further will be administered (charges or administrative measures).
> 2. If anyone else heard the Cpl say they were going to shut the party down I want you to come forward.
> 3. I will be raising this issue with the mess and the Cpl will be held accountable for their actions/removed from their job.
> 
> Another email came out next week that said, the mess did not remove the Cpl nor did they punish the member. So we will not be participating in that mess going forward and that includes the Soldiers Dinner being held there next week.
> 
> Now, administrative measures are nobody else business other than the members and the direct CoC above them. That being said both Lt's were promoted to Capt very shortly after that (one was a week later, the other six weeks later). The Capt the was promoted first was put in charge of the Soldiers Dinner that the unit held in March to replace the one they cancelled.
> 
> So how does this tie into what is being discussed; given the outcomes, lost Christmas party, broken liquor laws, lost Soldiers Dinner (consequent of CO decision), nobody was held accountable for their actions.
> 
> The fact is, our members are not aware of avenues to report outside CoC. Sometimes the avenue doesn't really exist or is hairy, such as needing the PCO to act, in the Generals case, it could have been reported to the CDS before they were appointed.
> 
> The reason it wasn't is because too many people worry about losing their next promotion if they speak up, even when they know they are right.
> 
> Not one SNCO or Major and above challenged the CO on their decision to cancel a very important tradition that should've superceded their emotion. None of them brought it to the OCC attention and if they did nothing happened.
> 
> This is a perpetual issue that a lot of units, commands face and it is the reason we can't overcome harassment, op honour, etc.
> 
> Once we figure out that morale and discipline improves when our best can be held accountable and allowed to progress if they react and fix the shortcomings appropriately, the rest should fall in place. The ones that don't will have leaders that went through being held accountable and won't rationalise the behaviour away with the thought; they were given a pass in a similar instance and look at where I am now.
> 
> To me the story isn't that the CDS may have or may not have acted inappropriately. The story is we never tried to investigate when it was brought up originally.


So they tried to punnish the PMC/whatever his position was for doing his job?


----------



## hattrick72

Weinie said:


> Ummmmmmmmmm.........OK. Good war story, sort of.
> 
> My post was in response to your comparing US and Canadian military systems of justice, and perhaps how/why they differ.


They differ because we hold our standards differently. Adultery can be charged under a number of things and the higher the rank the more you put into question your ability to make ethical decisions. 

The story was just to illustrate how far we can look the other way in what would seem like an easy black and white situation, that is ridiculous to boot. The black and white being is that an example of alcohol misconduct and is it right to hold the decision of the outcome at your level or should it be sent to Ottawa for their decision as suggested in the DAOD. 

My wife was in the US Air Force and I spent a year with her at her PCS. The way they handle discipline and deportment is completely different from what I have seen in my 15 year career. They are not perfect, but the majority of the situations that come up make it to their JAG and they don't ignore the advice.


----------



## hattrick72

Kilted said:


> So they tried to punnish the PMC/whatever his position was for doing his job?


They wanted that to be the outcome, but the other CoC saw it for what it was. 

IMO, a Cpl doesn't show that kind of resolve unless they are very set in their ways or they weren't given permission to shut things down a little early if things got messy. 

My main point is, if we can't figure out the easy things we have no hope of not being embarrassed everyone the chosen ones get found out in the media.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm not sure under what authority the Cpl had to close the entire event because of an individual bringing in offsite alcohol... I've worked those mess dinners as the Bartender, and been in mess dinners when folks brought in alcohol. It's poured out, and if the individual is a jerk about pouring it out they're told to leave. Party carries on unless a series of incidents start happening and then you find the nearest responsible CSM/SSM and let them know you'll have to close the bar if people carry on. Problem is normally solved 99% of the time at that point.


----------



## hattrick72

PuckChaser said:


> I'm not sure under what authority the Cpl had to close the entire event because of an individual bringing in offsite alcohol... I've worked those mess dinners as the Bartender, and been in mess dinners when folks brought in alcohol. It's poured out, and if the individual is a jerk about pouring it out they're told to leave. Party carries on unless a series of incidents start happening and then you find the nearest responsible CSM/SSM and let them know you'll have to close the bar if people carry on. Problem is normally solved 99% of the time at that point.


My opinion is the CO could've been trusted to handle it and the event could have been left to continue. This was a unit Christmas party not a mess dinner. Their were spouses at the event as well.

From the standpoint of the mess, they could lose their liquor licence of they were inspected and a patron was found to have their own liquor. They also lose the ability to stop serving someone if they are too drunk. The latter is far more plausible. 

In a private establishment, the group at the table would've been kicked out and the rest of the patrons would've been left alone. I am guessing they have had this problem in the past and they probably had it in the Constitution. 

I just feel it is a good example of how fast a situation can fall apart when you don't remove emotion and subordinates are too afraid to speak up.


----------



## Weinie

hattrick72 said:


> They differ because we hold our standards differently.


That, sort of, was my point. We have different military standards because we are different societies.



hattrick72 said:


> Adultery can be charged under a number of things and the higher the rank the more you put into question your ability to make ethical decisions.


Ummmmm no. Adultery/ethics knows no rank.



hattrick72 said:


> The story was just to illustrate how far we can look the other way in what would seem like an easy black and white situation, that is ridiculous to boot. The black and white being is that an example of alcohol misconduct and is it right to hold the decision of the outcome at your level or should it be sent to Ottawa for their decision as suggested in the DAOD.


Seems like it was black and white to me. The Cpl shut down the dinner.


hattrick72 said:


> My wife was in the US Air Force and I spent a year with her at her PCS. The way they handle discipline and deportment is completely different from what I have seen in my 15 year career. They are not perfect, but the majority of the situations that come up make it to their JAG and they don't ignore the advice.


They have a UCMJ, we have a NDA. And the CAF JAG is pretty good at suggesting charges, when they are warranted.


----------



## hattrick72

Weinie said:


> That, sort of, was my point. We have different military standards because we are different societies.
> 
> 
> Ummmmm no. Adultery/ethics knows no rank.
> 
> 
> Seems like it was black and white to me. The Cpl shut down the dinner.
> 
> They have a UCMJ, we have a NDA. And the CAF JAG is pretty good at suggesting charges, when they are warranted.


I do agree the JAG is great at what they do. CoC don't always listen or don't forward the paperwork for advice. I don't have percentages and every branch is different so I have one viewpoint. 

I agree all ranks can be victim to a lack of ethics, with life circumstance added into the mix. The outcome of the unethical decision will impair your ability to remain relevent the longer you have been in uniform. Some decisions will end every career, while others will have a greater affect on a more mature member than it will on a newer member. 

As for the last CDS, there is nothing saying that an investigation wasn't already done, and with the evidence at hand a decision was made. Now they could look at it again with a different lens. 

If one was completed in 2012 or 2014 etc. And a different decision is made, I wouldn't want to be the one that cleared everything earlier. They will either be a victim of politics or a victim of their own poor decision.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:


> I'm not sure under what authority the Cpl had to close the entire event because of an individual bringing in offsite alcohol..



I could be wrong but this sounds like a PRes mess.  Reg Force messes' have Mess Managers, in my experience and/or memory.

Assuming it is a PRes unit...I've been V-PMC, PMC of Messes' during my PRes time.  The PMC certainly didn't _outrank_ the CO in those cases.


----------



## Kilted

Eye In The Sky said:


> I could be wrong but this sounds like a PRes mess.  Reg Force messes' have Mess Managers, in my experience and/or memory.
> 
> Assuming it is a PRes unit...I've been V-PMC, PMC of Messes' during my PRes time.  The PMC certainly didn't _outrank_ the CO in those cases.


I believe according to the story the CO mentioned was the CO of a different unit then the mess belonged to.  This would mean that he wouldn't have the same authority, or really any authority over that particular mess.  I'm wondering if this was at a multi-unit armoury such as Fort York or Moss Park.  Perhaps there is more of a history here.


----------



## Furniture

PuckChaser said:


> *I'm not sure under what authority the Cpl had to close the entire event because of an individual bringing in offsite alcohol... *I've worked those mess dinners as the Bartender, and been in mess dinners when folks brought in alcohol. It's poured out, and if the individual is a jerk about pouring it out they're told to leave. Party carries on unless a series of incidents start happening and then you find the nearest responsible CSM/SSM and let them know you'll have to close the bar if people carry on. Problem is normally solved 99% of the time at that point.


I agree.

As presented it sounds like a case of "I have power and I want to use/abuse it" to me. Particularly if the Cpl was overheard by their peers stating they wanted to shut things down because of the mess at the end.

To be blunt, the story sounds like a case of a Cpl overreaching their authority, and not liking it when they get called on it. Deal with the individuals, and carry on with the event.


----------



## The Bread Guy

It appears the CFNIS may not be starting _entirely_ from square one ...


> The Department of National Defence says military police opened an investigation in 2015 into Gen. Jonathan Vance's conduct while he was serving in Italy the previous year, but that no charges were laid.
> 
> The Defence Department says the investigation was launched before Vance's appointment as defence chief in July 2015, but did not reveal the specific allegations that were investigated.
> 
> "An allegation against Gen. Vance was investigated by the military police in 2015 for conduct while serving as Deputy Commander, Allied Joint Force Command Naples, a position he held from 2013 until July 2014," the department said in an unattributed statement.
> 
> "The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigation did not meet the elements of the offence to lay charges under the Code of Service Discipline or the Criminal Code of Canada." ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The Bread Guy said:


> It appears the CFNIS may not be starting _entirely_ from square one ...


It would appear his shenanigans were identified before he became CDS. Looks like he had the same vetting team as the GG. 🙄


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Fishbone Jones said:


> It would appear his shenanigans were identified before he became CDS. Looks like he had the same vetting team as the GG. 🙄


Which does beg a serious discussion...... is the military so run by either fear, career bag licking of such an order that you sell your soul out, and/or pension above all else??   That's sure how it looks to outsiders right now.

I mean NO ONE stood up and said "Wait a darn minute here"?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Which does beg a serious discussion...... is the military so run by either fear, career bag licking of such an order that you sell your soul out, and/or pension above all else??   That's sure how it looks to outsiders right now.
> 
> I mean NO ONE stood up and said "Wait a darn minute here"?



There's a book about that.... I saw Dixon speak once. He has one arm 'earned largely through my own incompetence'. I recall that, during his talk, he focused on the part I've bolded below:


On the Psychology of Military Incompetence​_*On The Psychology of Military Incompetence*_ is a work by Norman F. Dixon,[1] first published in 1976,[2] which applies insights from psychology to military history. After case studies of military and naval disasters from the preceding 120 years, mostly British, it offers in readable, not technical, style an analysis of the personality of the unsuccessful leader. Its conclusions are equally applicable to other less deadly forms of human organisation.

Starting from the premise that success or failure in military and naval operations may in large part be due to the personality of the general or admiral in command, the author first examines various historical disasters and the role of the commander in the resulting loss of life or liberty for the victims (which often included civilians as well).

Among major British case studies, he cites the blunders in the Crimean War by Raglan, followed by the blunders of Buller in the Second Boer War. In the First World War, he looks at the casualty list of Haig on the Western Front and the ineptitude of Townshend in Mesopotamia. Between the wars he castigates Britain for its failure to modernise its forces, which led to years of disaster on land, sea and (less so) in the air. During the Second World War, he covers Percival's failure to defend Singapore and Montgomery's over-bold effort to seize Arnhem (though he sees this as a tragic blot on an otherwise laudable career).

*After this catalogue of incompetence, he addresses how such large and costly enterprises as armed forces can be put in the hands of men of such dubious calibre. Here he discerns a vicious circle: it is people of a certain type who are recruited and promoted, so others either do not apply or languish in insignificant positions. Among characteristics of the British officer class in the period under examination are: a narrow social segment admitted, scorn of intellectual and artistic endeavour, subservience to tradition, and emphasis on virility.*

This leads, in his view, to the prevalence of an authoritarian type, fawning to superiors and often harsh or uncaring to inferiors. Such a man, by this analysis, is afraid of women (so only half human) and afraid of failure. He therefore ignores people and facts which do not conform to his world view, learns little from experience and clings to external rules, applying them even when the situation demands other approaches (for example Haig sacrificing hundreds of thousands of men he ordered to walk through mud into German machine gun fire). He may not be stupid, though some of the generals studied undoubtedly were, and he may be physically courageous, but his fatal lack is moral courage. Men like Townshend and Percival, caught in a trap by a more enterprising enemy, sat zombie-like until disaster overwhelmed them.

As a corrective, the author also mentions unequivocally great military and naval commanders like Napoleon, Wellington and Nelson who were far from this personality type.









						On the Psychology of Military Incompetence - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Jarnhamar

Cue - "we're listening". 
Followed by - "promise to do better".


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> Cue - "we're listening".
> Followed by - "promise to do better".


Wait for it...............


----------



## Furniture

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Which does beg a serious discussion...... is the military so run by either fear, career bag licking of such an order that you sell your soul out, and/or pension above all else??   That's sure how it looks to outsiders right now.
> 
> *I mean NO ONE stood up and said "Wait a darn minute here"?*


Maybe it's different in the officer world, but down here as a lowly NCM we don't get a say in who gets promoted to be our boss. Complaints/concerns went to CFNIS, CFNIS did an investigation and no charges were laid... 

Why would the PMO listen to other CAF members worries, when their chosen man was not charged by the professionals?


----------



## FJAG

Furniture said:


> Maybe it's different in the officer world, but down here as a lowly NCM we don't get a say in who gets promoted to be our boss. Complaints/concerns went to CFNIS, CFNIS did an investigation and no charges were laid...
> 
> Why would the PMO listen to other CAF members worries, when their chosen man was not charged by the professionals?



Us officers didn't either.


----------



## Weinie

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Which does beg a serious discussion...... is the military so run by either fear, *career bag licking of such an order that you sell your soul out,* and/or pension above all else??   That's sure how it looks to outsiders right now.
> 
> I mean NO ONE stood up and said "Wait a darn minute here"?


Not so fast Bruce. It was a concern, it was raised, discussed, and investigated. The findings from the 2015 investigation were such that it did not meet the threshold for charges being laid. The Ombudsman, in 2018, because of constraints within his own mandate, would not furnish further info to PCO. So perhaps legislation is the problem, not any scrotum sucking as you imply.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

So it takes charges at that level to halt a career?.....if only that was evenly applied to all.

Excuses, excuses....sorry but this makes that picture of the old white men discussing "diversity" make perfect sense now.

Don't ask, don't tell....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Or maybe I'm just crabby.....but darn it, when will the foot shooting stop??


----------



## Weinie

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Or maybe I'm just crabby.....but darn it, when will the foot shooting stop??


Sometimes we shit the bed and then face the scorn of our roommates.. And then when we ask for Depends, the system says that they are not covered.

And then you from two blocks over, find out we shit the bed 5 years ago, in your neighborhood, and demand an inquisition.


----------



## OldSolduer

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Or maybe I'm just crabby.....but darn it, when will the foot shooting stop??


As long as human beings run the show it will never stop.


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:


> Cue - "we're listening".
> Followed by - "promise to do better".


The other COA is: “You must have experienced it differently.”


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I mean NO ONE stood up and said "Wait a darn minute here"?


Have to wonder how many _did_, and felt the consequences, based on what appears to be some less-than-comprehensive follow-up.


----------



## Haggis

The Bread Guy said:


> Have to wonder how many _did_, and felt the consequences, based on what appears to be some less-than-comprehensive follow-up.


Go back and check the CANFORGENS for crash retirements of GO/FOs and flag officers who were regarded as still having some legs prior to the CDS appointment.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Haggis said:


> Go back and check the CANFORGENS for crash retirements of GO/FOs and flag officers who were regarded as still having some legs prior to the CDS appointment.


So young to be so cynical ...


----------



## MilEME09

IN HER WORDS: One of the women behind Vance allegations tells her story - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Gen. Jonathan Vance denies the allegations of inappropriate behaviour and says he has been a "champion" and "friend" to Maj. Kellie Brennan.




					globalnews.ca
				




Exclusive interview with one of the people coming out with allegations against Vance. Some new revelations in this interview, some pretty damning ones too.


----------



## FSTO

MilEME09 said:


> IN HER WORDS: One of the women behind Vance allegations tells her story - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance denies the allegations of inappropriate behaviour and says he has been a "champion" and "friend" to Maj. Kellie Brennan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive interview with one of the people coming out with allegations against Vance. Some new revelations in this interview, some pretty damning ones too.


Holy crap.........


----------



## Jarnhamar

Coming forward like that must be scary as hell. It's terrible she has to be in this situation in the first place but maybe the privacy she just sacrificed will help other service members come forward too. 

The obligation to respond is a great point as well.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> Coming forward like that must be scary as hell. It's terrible she has to be in this situation in the first place but maybe the privacy she just sacrificed will help other service members come forward too.
> 
> The obligation to respond is a great point as well.



There's alot of risk as a 'whistle blower' and it doesn't always work out well:

The Whistleblower’s Dilemma: Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits?​








						The Whistleblower’s Dilemma: Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits?
					

How does a worker know what warrants a whistleblower response -- and how can organizations encourage those who want to report a misdeed to come forward?…Read More




					knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu


----------



## brihard

Oof. As soon as consent is getting called into question, this becomes a much bigger deal.


----------



## Haggis

Wow!!!  A consummate hypocrite.  

It will be fascinating to watch how the Teflon PM and his likely disposable MND deal with this.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> Wow!!!  A consummate hypocrite.
> 
> It will be fascinating to watch how the Teflon PM and his likely disposable MND deal with this.


I suspect that outside of CAF circles this will barely register. Trudeau can say he didn’t choose him and will plead ignorance that may or may not have some basis in truth.


----------



## Haggis

The PM has been pressed on this before and has already evaded answering. We'll know in a few days if this has any legs in the news cycle. I'm sure the PM is eager to change the channel away from vaccines but I don't think this is the soap opera he wants the MSM watching instead.


----------



## brihard

Selection of the new GG is next up. That will capture the news cycle and probably pull some attention back to further retrospective on Payette.


----------



## Good2Golf

“So if he was a Harper appointee, why did you keep him then?” 🤔 


Inquiring minds want (deserve) to know.


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> “So if he was a Harper appointee, why did you keep him then?” 🤔
> 
> 
> Inquiring minds want (deserve) to know.


They generally do until the end of the term - except for all that Somalia crap.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

Except, as a GiC appointment, the CDS serves at pleasure, not for a fixed term.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Except, as a GiC appointment, the CDS serves at pleasure, not for a fixed term.


True. True. But generally it's for a few years and new governments generally don't relieve serving CDSs and wait for a respectable period of time.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> True. True. But generally it's for a few years and new governments generally don't relieve serving CDSs and wait for a respectable period of time.
> 
> 🍻


By “respectable” you mean make him the longest serving CDS ever in the history of the position? 🤔

Yup, sounds like Trudeau couldn’t wait to get rid of Vance...


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> By “respectable” you mean make him the longest serving CDS ever in the history of the position? 🤔
> 
> Yup, sounds like Trudeau couldn’t wait to get rid of Vance...


No that's not what I meant at all. I meant more like the 2 to 3 years that was normal before regardless of when an election was won. I think most of the time a new government wants a CDS to stay in place for a while until the new MND gets his feet wet.

I really have no idea why Vance wasn't changed out earlier. It's not like there was anything big going on that needed him to stay at the rudder. If anything I would have thought maybe the MND was a bit in awe of him or it wasn't an important enough issue to address. Or maybe it was the whole Norman thing.

🤔


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:


> No that's not what I meant at all. I meant more like the 2 to 3 years that was normal before regardless of when an election was won. I think most of the time a new government wants a CDS to stay in place for a while until the new MND gets his feet wet.
> 
> I really have no idea why Vance wasn't changed out earlier. It's not like there was anything big going on that needed him to stay at the rudder. If anything I would have thought maybe the MND was a bit in awe of him or it wasn't an important enough issue to address. Or maybe it was the whole Norman thing.
> 
> 🤔


Vance was certainly the meat shield for the Minister and PM over what was essentially the PMO thinking they were omnipotent.


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> I really have no idea why Vance wasn't changed out earlier. It's not like there was anything big going on that needed him to stay at the rudder. If anything I would have thought maybe the MND was a bit in awe of him or it wasn't an important enough issue to address. Or maybe it was the whole Norman thing.


Handy to have the Sword of Damocles over your peon’s neck perhaps?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Handy to have the Sword of Damocles over your peon’s neck perhaps?


----------



## brihard

Might it be a matter of how fast they burned through a few key GOFOs during the Norman debacle? Lack of depth near the top?


----------



## Navy_Pete

This is crazy; I figured out to not crap where I sleep and date co-workers when I was a kid doing manual labour jobs.  Even dating a civilian at DND as CDS seems fraught with peril given the power imbalance, let alone anyone in uniform. I don't know how you square that as CDS when everyone is uniform is potentially under your Command or subject to your authority, even if they aren't directly in your chain.

Makes all the OP Honour messages that came out under his banner seem especially hypocritical, but does reinforce the importance of the program.


----------



## ArmyRick

Following. I am interested to see how this plays out. Rest assured Trudeau will have no hesitation putting distance between himself and Vance if this gets more intense. To put it bluntly, Vance put himself in at the very least, a very awkward situation. Lets see what else comes out of this investigation.


----------



## QM

brihard said:


> I suspect that outside of CAF circles this will barely register. Trudeau can say he didn’t choose him and will plead ignorance that may or may not have some basis in truth.


Its already hard to find on any Canadian media sites beyond the original carrier, Global News, where it has amassed a meager 26 comments so far (and half of those are from nutbar gurus offering scam advice on how to make money on the internet). No one outside a small circle seems to care about some Army guy having a girlfriend, even if to us it seems like a bombshell.


----------



## Haggis

QM said:


> Its already hard to find on any Canadian media sites beyond the original carrier, Global News, where it has amassed a meager 26 comments so far (and half of those are from nutbar gurus offering scam advice on how to make money on the internet).  No one outside a small circle seems to care about some Army guy having a girlfriend, even if to us it seems like a bombshell.


Other outlets have run with the original story but only Global seems to have the follow-up from this weekend.  What remains to be seen is how the opposition will run with this in the House.  The Trudeau clan has a history to tolerating indiscretions and the Liberals may well say "m'eh…. look over there!".  When PET died, both his ex-wife and his mistress attended his funeral.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

If only 50% of the facts given in that  interview are true, there has to be a big change to the top level of the CAF.  Flag Officers have to step up and do the right thing.  Fully vetted investigation and maybe with help from an outside service, and not the RCMP as they are not far enough removed from Ottawa and the people involved. OPP or a large city  police force from outside the chain of command.  Other NATO forces charge officers and NCOs after retirement and use full power of their laws, orders, rules to get  justice. But this is more than getting Justice this making sure everyone knows this sort of behaviour and actions are wrong and no more looking the other way.  The MND, should forget  he was a LCOL and be a Minister and call this action what  it is and be demanding hats off standing in front of his desk with letters of punishment, resignations and charge parades, court martials. Jr Ranks would be charged, the top levels should face the same punishments. I am sure this falls in with the catch all 129 Conduct unbecoming...........

This almost sounds like a militia unit from the 80s and 90s and how officers and jr ranks dated and then worked together but this Top position issuing a set of orders and using the not with standing clause. No one can bust me, or address my failure because I am the boss.  The CDS needs a strong RSM, and a strong 2IC who will tell him when he or she makes a mistake and how to correct it.  He failed his position and failed his leadership. 

To me this just proves no one has respect for themselves or those who serve below them if they  allow this continue.


----------



## MilEME09

Military probe into Vance allegations expands to ‘unprecedented’ levels - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The probe's expansion comes as a result of Global News' reporting on Sunday, which saw Maj. Kellie Brennan, one of the women behind the allegations, share her story.




					globalnews.ca
				




Global continues its coverage as the investigation expands to find out who knew and didn't say anything.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Mercedes has really got her teeth into this one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Kat Stevens said:


> Mercedes has really got her teeth into this one.


Which is good I believe......from what I've seen she won't do it looking to smear the organization , but instead go after those folk who themselves smeared the organization by their actions, or lack thereof.


----------



## Jarnhamar

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-ombudsman-vendetta-1.5288519
		

Former military ombudsman claims DND vendetta drove him into retirement​


> He also said the process gained significant traction only after a major, private falling out between him and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> *Walbourne refused to disclose the substance of his disagreement with the minister in the late winter of 2018, but said it was serious enough that Sajjan refused to speak or even meet with him for the remainder of his tenure.*
> 
> "It was a stiff conversation between adults that got a little heated," he said. "Going into detail may breach some of the oaths I've taken as Order in Council appointee."



What do you suppose that disagreement was about?

I wonder what the topic was that upset the government so much and caused our MND to cover his ears and yell la la la la la la.

I guess we'll never know.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I wonder, if the 3 parties put forward a motion for a complete public inquiry , would the Liberals go full 'confident vote'?


----------



## HiTechComms

Jarnhamar said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-ombudsman-vendetta-1.5288519
> 
> 
> Former military ombudsman claims DND vendetta drove him into retirement​
> 
> What do you suppose that disagreement was about?
> 
> I wonder what the topic was that upset the government so much and caused our MND to cover his ears and yell la la la la la la.
> 
> I guess we'll never know.


Well he is no longer an appointee and not bound by such an oath. Criminal activities should never be some how obfuscated by an oath.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

HiTechComms said:


> Well he is no longer an appointee and not bound by such an oath. Criminal activities should never be some how obfuscated by an oath.


Whoa there Sunshine.......big leap into 'criminal activities" and oaths can last a lot longer then your term.  I'd say most are forever.....ever had a lawyer, don't think the day he stops practice he can spill all your personal info.


----------



## HiTechComms

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Whoa there Sunshine.......big leap into 'criminal activities" and oaths can last a lot longer then your term.  I'd say most are forever.....ever had a lawyer, don't think the day he stops practice he can spill all your personal info.


For Criminal activities? Again I am being specific. Oath to protect a criminal act a bit absurd. Government needs more transparency. Everything should be in public settings. The excuse of national security shouldn't ever be cover for criminal activities. 

And people call me paranoid when I don't believe a single iota of what comes out of the government.


----------



## dapaterson

HiTechComms said:


> Well he is no longer an appointee and not bound by such an oath. Criminal activities should never be some how obfuscated by an oath.


Most such oaths are not bound to a period of employment.


----------



## HiTechComms

dapaterson said:


> Most such oaths are not bound to a period of employment.


Oaths used to cover up crimes. That is insane. That is literally Fascism. Manifestly illegal activities do not and shouldn't be shielded by an Oath no matter what in a Democratic society.
Again I am very specific. Crimes!


----------



## lenaitch

HiTechComms said:


> Well he is no longer an appointee and not bound by such an oath. Criminal activities should never be some how obfuscated by an oath.



What criminal activity?  Not defending either side here.  The problem with government 'ombudspersons' is they seem to seem to be expected to act like other political appointees and shuffle paper that doesn't ruffle feathers.  If anything, they should be Officers of Parliament.


----------



## SupersonicMax

HiTechComms said:


> Oaths used to cover up crimes. That is insane. That is literally Fascism. Manifestly illegal activities do not and shouldn't be shielded by an Oath no matter what in a Democratic society.
> Again I am very specific. Crimes!


So, a lawyer should tell the court that their client is guilty, if the client confessed to their lawyer?


----------



## brihard

HiTechComms said:


> Oaths used to cover up crimes. That is insane. That is literally Fascism. Manifestly illegal activities do not and shouldn't be shielded by an Oath no matter what in a Democratic society.
> Again I am very specific. Crimes!


You’re deeply out of your depth, it appears, on the subject of privileged communication. There are many contexts in which this happens- there are privileged enjoyed by medical practitioners, by lawyers, by journalists... What you are essentially saying is that a victim of some sort of official malfeasance or of crime should not have access to helpful resources unless they are willing to have that resource immediately turn around and repeat to police what the victim discloses. That’s utterly out to lunch. Victims are almost never legally obligated to cooperate with an investigation or to report something in the first place. If they don’t want a matter to proceed through criminal or other investigation because of the additional harm to them, that’s generally respected.

Besides that, you’ve introduced the word ‘criminal’ to this when, as of yet, it’s not at all clear nor strongly implied that crime was committed. There can be tremendous abuses of authority that fall short of criminal culpability.

If a victim of something goes forward to an omnudsperson looking for help, the onbudsperson should, in nearly every case, respect that request for confidentiality, subject to the usual exceptions such as harm to children or threatened harm to oneself or to third parties. That is not ‘literally Fascism!’, no matter how twisted your knickers may be over it.


----------



## HiTechComms

SupersonicMax said:


> So, a lawyer should tell the court that their client is guilty, if the client confessed to their lawyer?


No, the ombudsman no matter what oath if they uncovered a crime should report it to Law enforcement but if they are gagged by an elected official from reporting on the crime because  think about the OATH you took as an appointee as a threat/deterrent cannot be good in the long run for society. 

Again this is hypothetical.  If ombudsman discovered a crime that a CAF member committed they shouldn't be blocked by a minister from going to authorities ie RCMP or what ever because this person was high ranking. This literally encourages crimes to be committed by high ranking officials because they cannot be charged ever because of an oath. This is absurd and insane level of thinking. 

People are not reading or at least understanding the message. 

You are also jumping through some mental hoops here and grasping at straws. FYI an Ombudsman is not a Lawyer and even then a lawyer is not bound not to report a crime committed by their client. 

Definition Ombudsman !=Lawyer

A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization.

A government official, especially in Scandinavian countries, who investigates citizens' complaints against the government or its functionaries.


----------



## MJP

brihard said:


> Besides that, you’ve introduced the word ‘criminal’ to this when, as of yet, it’s not at all clear nor strongly implied that crime was committed. There can be tremendous abuses of authority that fall short of criminal culpability.


This is something that many folks in the military have a hard time wrapping their head around is that misconduct is not necessarily breaking the law. Now the CSD & NDA have some catch alls but many things are administrative investigations things that would be handled by HR depts. in any other place of business.


----------



## HiTechComms

brihard said:


> You’re deeply out of your depth, it appears, on the subject of privileged communication. There are many contexts in which this happens- there are privileged enjoyed by medical practitioners, by lawyers, by journalists... What you are essentially saying is that a victim of some sort of official malfeasance or of crime should not have access to helpful resources unless they are willing to have that resource immediately turn around and repeat to police what the victim discloses. That’s utterly out to lunch. Victims are almost never legally obligated to cooperate with an investigation or to report something in the first place. If they don’t want a matter to proceed through criminal or other investigation because of the additional harm to them, that’s generally respected.
> 
> Besides that, you’ve introduced the word ‘criminal’ to this when, as of yet, it’s not at all clear nor strongly implied that crime was committed. There can be tremendous abuses of authority that fall short of criminal culpability.
> 
> If a victim of something goes forward to an omnudsperson looking for help, the onbudsperson should, in nearly every case, respect that request for confidentiality, subject to the usual exceptions such as harm to children or threatened harm to oneself or to third parties. That is not ‘literally Fascism!’, no matter how twisted your knickers may be over it.


If a complaint was logged with an Ombudsman about conduct of a Government/Public official and the investigation found there were indeed were possible criminal acts committed then the ombudsman should be able to report to a investigative bodies/and law enforcement. If you cannot do that then what is the point of an ombudsman if the inestigation gets gagged.  
You completely missed the point all I said that Oaths shouldn't bar reporting of crimes to bodies that enforce the law and a politician should not have the right to gag such findings.  That would breed corruption.

I am not saying Vance committed a crime because Innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## brihard

HiTechComms said:


> If a complaint was logged with an Ombudsman about conduct of a Government/Public official and the investigation found there were indeed were possible criminal acts committed then the ombudsman should be able to report to a investigative bodies/and law enforcement. If you cannot do that then what is the point of an ombudsman if the inestigation gets gagged.
> You completely missed the point all I said that Oaths shouldn't bar reporting of crimes to bodies that enforce the law and a politician should not have the right to gag such findings.  That would breed corruption.
> 
> I am not saying Vance committed a crime because Innocent until proven guilty.


I assure you I missed nothing you brought up, you simply aren’t particularly well grounded in the subject matter.

So here’s the part you’ll like: the Ombudsperson can, in fact, report crimes or breaches of the Code of Service Discipline to appropriate authorities. That’s right in the DAOD establishing their position. However, the part you won’t like is that they do not HAVE to. The enabling section of the DAOD says they ‘may’. It is utterly consistent with other professional practices that, where the victim of a potential offense comes forward with such a privileged complaint, it is generally up to the victim whether they want the ombudsperson or other assisting professional to escalate the matter to a formal report for investigative purposes. This is largely out of respect for the rights of the victim, and the psychological harm that can result from an investigation into their victimization being launched against their will.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I thought you came from a country that you hated because of people ratting on their neighbour's?


----------



## HiTechComms

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I thought you came from a country that you hated because of people ratting on their neighbour's?


Ombudsman were created to investigate complaints. A little different when no such body existed. I never hated my country I hated the system and it has gotten better because they adopted these democratic/legal changes. 

Not sure what you are getting at by Falsely accusing some one for political points and having a system that has no protections of any individual legal rights against a political police has anything to do with this case. Nice try for trying to shift the goal posts with a what aboutism and are you seriously comparing this situation to Communism?


----------



## HiTechComms

brihard said:


> I assure you I missed nothing you brought up, you simply aren’t particularly well grounded in the subject matter.
> 
> So here’s the part you’ll like: the Ombudsperson can, in fact, report crimes or breaches of the Code of Service Discipline to appropriate authorities. That’s right in the DAOD establishing their position. However, the part you won’t like is that they do not HAVE to. The enabling section of the DAOD says they ‘may’. It is utterly consistent with other professional practices that, where the victim of a potential offense comes forward with such a privileged complaint, it is generally up to the victim whether they want the ombudsperson or other assisting professional to escalate the matter to a formal report for investigative purposes. This is largely out of respect for the rights of the victim, and the psychological harm that can result from an investigation into their victimization being launched against their will.


I understand what you are saying, that what I am referring to is a potential Crime.
What my problem is with the situation is if the Ombudsman was pressured by a political body IE: Minister, Prime Minister, for not pursuing an investigation for purely political optics. ALA SNC-Lavalin and the excuse by the PM that they were protecting "Canadian Jobs"
The other question is who is the "victim" even if that can be defined or found, and what or who gets sacrificed in the process, (moral conundrum)

I just rather see an impartial investigation and if the parties are cleared then they are cleared or maybe not. I personnaly want to avoid creating witch hunts.

It also appears in this case that the Political body knew about the problem in 2018. The optics is that the Ombudsman got pressured by a standing minister. It simply doesn't look good.


----------



## Remius

HiTechComms said:


> Ombudsman were created to investigate complaints. A little different when no such body existed. I never hated my country I hated the system and it has gotten better because they adopted these democratic/legal changes.
> 
> Not sure what you are getting at by Falsely accusing some one for political points and having a system that has no protections of any individual legal rights against a political police has anything to do with this case. Nice try for trying to shift the goal posts with a what aboutism and are you seriously comparing this situation to Communism?


You’ve been comparing a lot of things to communism in other threads.  🤔


----------



## Weinie

MJP said:


> This is something that many folks in the military have a hard time wrapping their head around* is that misconduct is not necessarily breaking the law. *Now the CSD & NDA have some catch alls but many things are administrative investigations things that would be handled by HR depts. in any other place of business.


And that misconduct, if that is what it is, is only defined in Canada under NDA 129 and applied to CAF members (yup, I know that the NDA can apply in certain circumstances to others.) . I cannot for the life of me think of a CC equivalent. (Brihard, please weigh in)


----------



## Haggis

Weinie said:


> And that misconduct, if that is what it is, is only defined in Canada under NDA 129 and applied to CAF members (yup, I know that the NDA can apply in certain circumstances to others.) . I cannot for the life of me think of a CC equivalent. (Brihard, please weigh in)


NDA S 129 is a uniquely military offence.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:


> NDA S 129 is a uniquely military offence.


For the RCMP, it would be violating 7.1 of the Code of Conduct.






						Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 2014
					

Federal laws of canada




					laws.justice.gc.ca


----------



## lenaitch

HiTechComms said:


> . . .a lawyer is not bound not to report a crime committed by their client.


Please enlighten us on your foundation for this double-negative logic.


----------



## MilEME09

You are all assuming as well the ombudsman is the one who did nothing. We suspect he told the MND, but until he testifies before committee it is all speculation. It is also possible he reported but someone chose not to investigate. The biggest allegation I have seen so far against Vance is covering up the sexual assault of a subordinate to prevent an affair with that same subordinate from coming to light. If that's true, it destroys the CAFs credibility to enforce operation honor.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> You are all assuming as well the ombudsman is the one who did nothing. We suspect he told the MND, but until he testifies before committee it is all speculation. It is also possible he reported but someone chose not to investigate. The biggest allegation I have seen so far against Vance is covering up the sexual assault of a subordinate to prevent an affair with that same subordinate from coming to light. If that's true, it destroys the CAFs credibility to enforce operation honor.



It's OK, I've got a big green binder somewhere full of ethics stuff that we had to plow through a few years ago as part of yet another mandatory training thing. I'm sure Diogenes has our back 

The Statement of Defence Ethics​
_Principle I_: *Respect the Dignity of all Persons*. This ethical principle reflects the primacy in the public domain of our common identity as members of one human family over our identities as members of a particular race, religion, nationality, or ethnic group. This common identity is rooted in the biological unity of humankind, in its unique cognitive abilities, and in its distinctive behavioural and social characteristics. At a minimum, adhering to this principle means that we cannot torture, do violence to, brutalize, injure, coerce, bully, deceive, manipulate, use as expendable, treat unjustly, discriminate against, harass, or otherwise ill-treat another human being. At a minimum and more positively, this principle also requires respect for the intrinsic worth of every person and the treatment of all persons with tolerance and consideration. In other words, it means that we must treat others always as ‘ends,’ and not as objects or mere means to an end. Finally, this principle requires respecting the basic rights and freedoms that have come to be recognized as intrinsic and defining characteristics of the dignity of persons. We should not, therefore, without some compelling and overriding reason, deprive any person or group of these basic rights and freedoms.






						The Statement of Defence Ethics - Canada.ca
					






					www.canada.ca


----------



## PPCLI Guy

daftandbarmy said:


> It's OK, I've got a big green binder somewhere full of ethics stuff that we had to plow through a few years ago as part of yet another mandatory training thing. I'm sure Diogenes has our back
> 
> ​


Huh.  You took that training?  I had a good side hustle going back in the day.  I would offer to take the training for people for $20, and after I got their money, I reported them.  Applied ethics

For those that don't know me, that is a joke....


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:


> Huh.  You took that training?  I had a good side hustle going back in the day.  I would offer to take the training for people for $20, and after I got their money, I reported them.  Applied ethics
> 
> For those that don't know me, that is a joke....


----------



## Halifax Tar

Now please don't flame me here as I am looking to get educated on this, ok ?  

From where I sit it looks like the CDS and a Maj had a longstanding quazi relationship that for Vance, at least, was extramarital.  Defiantly sexual and it seems probably emotional as well.  But from what I have read it seems consensual.  

My understanding is that adultery is a private matter in the CAF and Canada and we don't go after people for that.  If we did I am not sure we would have much of CAF left and I am pointing at all genders her.  So what has has the CDS done wrong ?  I understand there is another complainant who the details of have not been released so perhaps there is more there.  

If we are going to starting investigating everyone at and above the rank of MS/MCpl, both commissioned and non, who has formed a relationship be it for a few hours or a years; I think we are in a world a hurt.  

I want to reiterate, I thought this (Op Honor) was all about consensual VS nonconsensual.  Please educate me, and I am being serious.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Having a Sexual relationship with someone you are in a position of power or control over can be a criminal act.  We had an ordained Minister at my treatment jail, who scored 18 months, for ending up in a relationship with a female parisher who came to him for counciling.   She went back to hubby and then filed charges that he had taken advantage of the power relationship between the two while she was vulnerable .   Obviously the court agreed....


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Having a Sexual relationship with someone you are in a position of power or control over can be a criminal act.  We had an ordained Minister at my treatment jail, who scored 18 months, for ending up in a relationship with a female parisher who came to him for counciling.   She went back to hubby and then filed charges that he had taken advantage of the power relationship between the two while she was vulnerable .   Obviously the court agreed....



Gotcha!


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> For the RCMP, it would be violating 7.1 of the Code of Conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 2014
> 
> 
> Federal laws of canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> laws.justice.gc.ca


Would not that be more of a rough equivalent to NDA s. 92 to 94?  Of note, convictions under the RCMP Code of Conduct alone cannot land you in jail, whereas the NDA can.


----------



## Ostrozac

Halifax Tar said:


> I want to reiterate, I thought this (Op Honor) was all about consensual VS nonconsensual.  Please educate me, and I am being serious.


Under Op Honour, "The CAF accepted all 10 recommendations" of the Deschamps Report. Recommendation 5 of said report recommended that the CAF:

"Develop a definition of adverse personal relationship that specifically addresses relationships between members of different rank, and creates a presumption of an adverse personal relationship where the individuals involved are of different rank, unless the relationship is properly disclosed."

The relationship in question (secretive, different rank) certainly seems to meet that criteria.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:


> Would not that be more of a rough equivalent to NDA s. 92 to 94?  Of note, convictions under the RCMP Code of Conduct alone cannot land you in jail, whereas the NDA can.


SIDEBAR: Recent amendments to the NDA (not yet in force) will separate Summary Proceedings from trials, and remove detention or imprisonment from the scale of punishments a Summary Proceeding can impose.


----------



## AKa

To add to the discussion, I would argue that even if the relationship was no longer sexual when she was working directly for Vance in Toronto (as he alleges and she disputes), it still would have been highly inappropriate.  *You do not ever have a command relationship with an intimate connection.*  (How could you ever be impartial?)

I knew this back in the 80s at charm school; it is not a new concept.   Even if Vance is telling the truth (for the record, I find her more credible), he still engaged in egregiously inappropriate conduct, especially for the officer supposed to epitomize military values.

I have peers who are utterly gutted by these revelations.  And even with my profound cynicism, I am deeply disappointed that so many seem to have been aware of this relationship and turned a blind eye.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> Would not that be more of a rough equivalent to NDA s. 92 to 94?  Of note, convictions under the RCMP Code of Conduct alone cannot land you in jail, whereas the NDA can.


Nor can RCMP code of conduct proceedings land a criminal record. There's no external record of it. And if a member releases from RCMP, they can't impose any sanctions.  I don't believe there is any meaningful comparator outside of CAF for the CSD.


----------



## Rifleman62

Never Stick Your Quil In The Company's Ink.


----------



## Ostrozac

Rifleman62 said:


> Never Stick Your Quil In The Company's Ink.


That’s not achievable. According to the numbers in the 2017 Regular Force Demographics Survey, 36% of Regular Force women were in a Service Couple. To that you can add unspecified numbers that are dating, men in same-sex couples, marriages where one member has released, etc... It’s a vast number and can‘t be handwaved away with a “don’t do this”. It was specifically mentioned in the Deschamps Report as something that we need to acknowledge and deal with, but we can never stop it.


----------



## TCM621

lenaitch said:


> What criminal activity?  Not defending either side here.  The problem with government 'ombudspersons' is they seem to seem to be expected to act like other political appointees and shuffle paper that doesn't ruffle feathers.  If anything, they should be Officers of Parliament.


Both the Veterans and CAF ombudsmen, specifically Guy Parent and Gary Walbourne, made that argument in front of Parliament but the Trudeau Government declined. The ombudspersons were a good idea but they are only as good as the support they get from the government. Unless it's something simple like getting around a particular individual or getting help to clear up confusion, they are basically useless.  Their recommendations get adopted and them ignored for the most part.


----------



## Haggis

Ostrozac said:


> That’s not achievable. According to the numbers in the 2017 Regular Force Demographics Survey, 36% of Regular Force women were in a Service Couple. To that you can add unspecified numbers that are dating, *men *in same-sex couples, marriages where one member has released, etc... It’s a vast number and can‘t be handwaved away with a “don’t do this”. It was specifically mentioned in the Deschamps Report as something that we need to acknowledge and deal with, but we can never stop it.


Only men? I know of a few female friends in same-sex relationships inside the CAF.

Notwithstanding the demographics and the concerns you quoted above, a relationship in the CAF becomes inappropriate when there is a power imbalance which is used to gain consent (something the complainant in this instance alluded to in her interview with Global News), real or perceived bias, or the relationship is used by either party as an influencing factor.


----------



## Ostrozac

Haggis said:


> Only men? I know of a few female friends in same-sex relationships inside the CAF.


Women in same-sex service couples were included in the 36%. The statistics are a little hard to crunch, but it’s an interesting snapshot. Another data point is that 58% of the Regular Force are married or common-law — which is, no surprise, almost identical to the Canadian general population where it was 59% that year. Our military culture is closely tied to the Canadian culture from which we recruit.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

Serious question.  Does this not fall under section 129? Conduct unbecoming?  There is a history of retired members being bought up on service charges for a lot less than this.  False medals and awards etc.  So what  would it take to bring charges and a court marital?  Just curious , way  beyond any pay grade I was.


----------



## dapaterson

Rory Fowler, retired JAG LCol with a whiff of the PPCLI, wrote about the challenges of prosecuting any individual appointed under the NDA (CDS, JAG, military judges, Provost Marshal, Directors of Military Prosecution and Defence Counsel Services...) on his blog.









						Prosecuting the Chief of the Defence Staff
					

Prosecuting the Chief of the Defence Staff     Could the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) be prosecuted under the Code of Service Discipline?  Recently, Global News published a report alleging misconduct on the part of the former CDS, General Jonathan Vance.[1]  Specifically, it was alleged that...




					roryfowlerlaw.com


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I read the blog,  very legal sounding,  so it would take a lot of effort and changes to the system to charge the CDS with any service related offense. So what  will happen? Guess we wait and see?


----------



## MilEME09

Conservatives urge salary freeze, independent probe over military misconduct claims - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Adm. Art McDonald and Gen. Jonathan Vance are facing military police investigations amid what experts call a 'crisis' for the Canadian Forces.




					globalnews.ca
				




Globals coverage continues with the CPC bringing up the possibility of a public inquiry, asking for wage and promotion freezes of senior ranks.


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> Conservatives urge salary freeze, independent probe over military misconduct claims - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Adm. Art McDonald and Gen. Jonathan Vance are facing military police investigations amid what experts call a 'crisis' for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Globals coverage continues with the CPC bringing up the possibility of a public inquiry, asking for wage and promotion freezes of senior ranks.


 Glad I am retiring soon.


----------



## Haggis

MilEME09 said:


> Conservatives urge salary freeze, independent probe over military misconduct claims - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Adm. Art McDonald and Gen. Jonathan Vance are facing military police investigations amid what experts call a 'crisis' for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Globals coverage continues with the CPC bringing up the possibility of a public inquiry, asking for wage and promotion freezes of senior ranks.


Specifically, they are targeting GO/FOs for the freezes.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> Specifically, they are targeting GO/FOs for the freezes.



Nothing like picking on one layer in a big organization to throw the fox in the hen house.

A few years ago I was working with a public sector organization that did that, froze senior executive wages, and the good people all left. 

They're still paying for it, mainly by having to hire more consultants


----------



## Weinie

Haggis said:


> Specifically, they are targeting GO/FOs for the freezes.


As I will never ever reach/aspire to those lofty heights, I am reasonably assured that I will get a pay raise. My point, not articulated, was that we seem to be regressing back into that period, merited or not, where scrutiny of the CAF becomes the de rigueur. Having lived through that for several iterations in the past 38 years, I am glad that I will be able to disengage.

The fact that we comprise the largest part of the discretionary budget has been a factor in how detractors/opponents have framed us in the past. Is this happening now/again?


----------



## dapaterson

If you maintain a freeze for part of the structure too long, you can end up with inversions.  Since it's usually LCol and below and Col and above pay increases: for GSOs, the difference in pay is about 7.8% between LCol max and Col basic (https://www.canada.ca/en/department...litary/pay-pension-benefits/pay/officers.html).  

PSAC just got (compounded) 6.48% (http://psacunion.ca/deal-reached-for-phoenix-damages-pa-group-common-issues)... freeze Col/Capt(N) and GOFO another year or so and LCol/Cdrs will be paid more than Col/Capt(N).


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> If you maintain a freeze for part of the structure too long, you can end up with inversions.  Since it's usually LCol and below and Col and above pay increases: for GSOs, the difference in pay is about 7.8% between LCol max and Col basic (https://www.canada.ca/en/department...litary/pay-pension-benefits/pay/officers.html).
> 
> PSAC just got (compounded) 6.48% (http://psacunion.ca/deal-reached-for-phoenix-damages-pa-group-common-issues)... freeze Col/Capt(N) and GOFO another year or so and LCol/Cdrs will be paid more than Col/Capt(N).


Some Capts already make more than GOFOs (up to MGen).  I don’t think they would care too too much.


----------



## dapaterson

In the late 90s there was a rank inversion between GSO LCol and Col, and there were instances of promotion refusal.


----------



## Weinie

The plot thinnens..............


----------



## blacktriangle

daftandbarmy said:


> They're still paying for it, mainly by having to hire more consultants


Speaking of consultants...perhaps the CAF should spring for a romance consultant to teach senior leadership how to find dates outside the office. Or you know, maybe they could demonstrate fiscal stewardship and just go ask your average Cpl or Capt how it's done (Ok, on second thought, just hire the damn consultant...)


----------



## cavalryman

My scotch-addled brain seems to remember they did the promotion freeze back in 1997 for everyone because the CF offended the government of the day - I believe it was related to the Somalia matter - just as my promotion paperwork was in the pipeline. It cost me 6 months seniority at the next rank for SFA. But hey, it made the Chretien government feel like it did something substantive.


----------



## CBH99

How did freezing promotions accomplish ANYTHING??


----------



## CBH99

lenaitch said:


> Please enlighten us on your foundation for this double-negative logic.


If lawyers were required to report their client's crime, it would completely do away with the basic structure of our legal system.  Nothing screws over an accused more than their own legal counsel ratting them out


----------



## FSTO

reveng said:


> Speaking of consultants...perhaps the CAF should spring for a romance consultant to teach senior leadership how to find dates outside the office. Or you know, maybe they could demonstrate fiscal stewardship and just go ask your average Cpl or Capt how it's done (Ok, on second thought, just hire the damn consultant...)


Well first off the FOGO's will need the queer eye for the strait guy crew to come in and fix their clothing selection.


----------



## Haggis

reveng said:


> Speaking of consultants...perhaps the CAF should spring for a romance consultant to teach senior leadership how to find dates outside the office.


Installing the Tinder app on their Blackberry's would be much cheaper.


----------



## PuckChaser

Haggis said:


> Installing the Tinder app on their Blackberry's would be much cheaper.


I hear that's how the PM picks the GG and CDS short list, swiping right on pictures.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:


> I hear that's how the PM picks the GG and CDS short list, swiping right on pictures.


----------



## FJAG

Here's an idea:



> US Army crowdsources ideas to combat sexual assault crisis​Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has named sexual assault cases as a top priority​





> CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) – Sgt. Taylor Knueven always knew sexual assault and harassment plagued the U.S. Army. But the combat medic’s own assault early last year opened her eyes to the broken system surrounding one of the military’s most infamous problems.
> 
> Earlier this week, Knueven and six other soldiers went before a panel in the 18th Airborne Corps headquarters at Fort Bragg, N.C., to present ideas on how the Army can revamp the way it deals with sexual assault and harassment.
> 
> The Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program, also known as SHARP, has been the subject of much scrutiny, especially following the slaying of Spc. Vanessa Guillen by a fellow soldier inside a Fort Hood, Texas, armory last April. ...





> Last week, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at his first Pentagon news conference that reducing sexual assault is one of his top priorities and that he would introduce stronger efforts to fight it.
> 
> "We have been working at this for a long time in earnest, but we haven’t gotten it right," he said.
> 
> Staff Sgt. Shameka Dudley wants to see stale SHARP training PowerPoints replaced with virtual reality scenarios that would offer soldiers a glimpse at assault and harassment scenarios through the eyes of survivors, aggressors and bystanders.
> 
> "We have this same training and it’s really not changing much," Dudley said. "The numbers are still going up." ...



https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-army-crowdsources-combat-sexual-assault

Asking for input from the ranks ... what a novel idea.

🍻


----------



## kratz

> Asking for input from the ranks ... what a novel idea.



RCN command didn't enjoy much of the input from the JRs WRT the proposed rank changes. 
How much more distasteful would the higher CAF command find feedback from the entire JRs?


----------



## armyvern

@reveng


> Speaking of consultants...perhaps the CAF should spring for a romance consultant to teach senior leadership how to find dates outside the office. Or you know, maybe they could demonstrate fiscal stewardship and just go ask your average Cpl or Capt how it's done (Ok, on second thought, just hire the damn consultant...)





The whole issue with this is that often those relationships start out when individuals are of lower rank levels, are often the same rank level and not in each others Chains of Command (CoC) as thus neither has any impact upon the career progression or trajectory of the other.

The CAF is a very large 'workplace' and to expect that we, as people, should be treated differently than any other member of Canadian society or Canadian workplace by being prohibited from, or disgraced by, entering into a *consensual* relationship with another CAF member is just not feasible or acceptable.

Whether the couple in question marries or continues dating _may_ become an issue when one member progresses to rank levels higher than the other, which is certainly not unheard of, if both members are making a 'career' out of their service to Canada. Especially so if the members are of the same trade.

If married, this type of situation is better managed and avoided as the military spouse's details on posting and unit are known by career managers' and reflected on each others' MPRR. If dating, we already have service requirements to 'disclose' a personal relationship that may have impact upon one being posted in to a position of seniority over the other so that the situation can be mitigated. Not disclosing such can already be considered a possible service offence. This situation is mostly experienced when both individuals are members of the same trade or Branch. Or, when one of the members is promoted to a high enough rank level to be selected for a position, key position, or senior appointment (and that is certainly not just relevant to Commissioned Officers within the CAF) that would see the 'selected' individual chosen to serve in a post that _may, would or could_  see opportunity to exert undue influence and must ethically be disclosed and reported. In the selection process, the individual being considered is often employed outside of their Trade, Branch or Environment and _that_ fact itself may then inadvertently cause their respective partner to then somehow fall under their possible influence regarding career path or trajectory. It should be reported and steps taken to mitigate any opportunity to influence - negatively or positively.

Although I am not married to my partner, we began dating when we were the same rank level. We were different trades and not employed within the same Unit. We were members of the same Mess on base though (egads - that's the bar we met in) - and there's thousands out there who belong to Messes who could meet their other half in exactly the same manner (and many service couples I know have the same back-story). Eventually, I progressed up the ranks and out-ranked him. When posted to Edmonton, I was selected for, and offered, a Senior Appointment in Ottawa as a Formation CWO and it was not until that point in time that, and we'll call him my _hubby_ anyway, my hubby would have fallen within the same CoC as I would have had I accepted as he was already serving in Ottawa in a position within that Command.

Before accepting, I ensured those who made my 'selection' were aware of exactly who he was and where he worked and allowed them to decide whether they still wanted me and how to mitigate.  I suggested that it could be mitigated by having someone else perform any admin or disciplinary investigation that may involve him or his work and that I not participated in any boards (H&A, Merit etc) that involved military personnel of the same rank as him. Thus, I could not exert positive influence for him, nor negative influence of his peers. That was deemed to be acceptable mitigation and I went in as the FCWO. The processes that we already have in place for this type of situation worked.

The issue is _*not*_ with consensual relationships between service members where our current processes are followed by both members (disclosure etc).

The issue is with non-consensual relationships, consensual-beginning relationships that devolve into non-consensual ones, abuse of authority situations, or non-disclosed personal relationships. We also have a system to deal with the offenders in any of these situations too and we call it the NDA. Operation HONOUR is about education and informing of personnel of the above inappropriate sexual behaviors, the encouragement of one's ability to report such safely without fear of reprisal whoever the offender should happen to be, prevention of the ability of an offender to hide under cover of rank or position or cover-up by CoC, and the instilling of confidence in ALL of our victim-personnel that we truly have their six and can protect and look after each other.

If nothing else, the latest serves to highlight that no-one is above scrutiny and/or investigation when allegations are made - that people now feel safe to make an allegation about a superior if they feel it necessary. All in, we've come a hell of a long way since I joined in the 80s where doing so would be unheard of.


----------



## mariomike

armyvern said:


> Whether the couple in question marries or continues dating _may_ become an issue when one member progresses to rank levels higher than the other, which is certainly not unheard of, if both members are making a 'career' out of their service to Canada.


My kid sister sister and her husband spent their careers in the Regular Force. I don't know what the rules are for Married Service Couples ( MSC ) - there's a six-page thread on that, if anyone is interested. 

But, I do remember a thing I thought was funny. She said she could take us ( my parents and me ) into her mess, but couldn't bring my brother-in-law.   

Somehow they made their careers / marriage work, had kids and are happily retired. The CAF got her out of the asphalt jungle, and she never looked back.


----------



## MilEME09

‘Roar and be heard’: Woman behind Vance allegations calls for independent investigation - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Experts say the Canadian military is facing an institutional 'crisis' in the wake of twin military police probes launched into its current and former chiefs of defence staff.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## OldSolduer

Seriously our military is being destroyed from within - thanks to ne'er do wells at all levels, a pirhana like media and a government that's willing to "defund" the military. This should upset the majority of Canadians but most will shrug and ask for another program to help the needy. 

One day the lack of funding, leadership that think they can circumvent the law and media circuses such as this will backfire if it hasn't already.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> Seriously our military is being destroyed from within - thanks to ne'er do wells at all levels, a pirhana like media and a government that's willing to "defund" the military. This should upset the majority of Canadians but most will shrug and ask for another program to help the needy.
> 
> One day the lack of funding, leadership that think they can circumvent the law and media circuses such as this will backfire if it hasn't already.


Already has, just no ones died yet.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Already has, just no ones died yet.



I dunno....

At the unit level the troops seem to still get trained, and generally carry on regardless of the shenanigans on high. 

As per SOP....


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> I dunno....
> 
> At the unit level the troops seem to still get trained, and generally carry on regardless of the shenanigans on high.
> 
> As per SOP....


And that is our saving grace. I have concerns with the perception the general public has of our military. 

I remember the Somalia and CAR disbandment. That wasn`t a fun time.


----------



## brihard

Aaaaand Gary Walbourne just threw Sajjan under the bus. Cabinet shuffle in 3... 2... 1...

Former ombudsman says he warned Sajjan about allegations against Gen. Vance 3 years ago​



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-sajjan-walbourne-misconduct-1.5935397


----------



## Kat Stevens

brihard said:


> Aaaaand Gary Walbourne just threw Sajjan under the bus. Cabinet shuffle in 3... 2... 1...
> 
> Former ombudsman says he warned Sajjan about allegations against Gen. Vance 3 years ago​
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-sajjan-walbourne-misconduct-1.5935397


Awesome! Live by the lie, die by the lie. I doubt he'll feel it though, Budman probably just experienced it differently.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said publicly he first learned about the allegations against Vance through a Global News report last month.



We're to believe that the PMO didn't tell Trudeau about sexual misconduct allegations against a top general and CDS, who was leading Operation Honour. No one brought it up in 3 years...



Time for patience is over': Sajjan vows action on culture change within Canadian Forces​Link


> In an interview on CTV’s Question Period with host Evan Solomon, *Sajjan said the Forces need to start "preventing" these kinds of events, rather than "reacting" to them.*



Sure sounds like the MND is a big part of the problem.


----------



## blacktriangle

The architect of his own destruction.


----------



## MilEME09

brihard said:


> Aaaaand Gary Walbourne just threw Sajjan under the bus. Cabinet shuffle in 3... 2... 1...
> 
> Former ombudsman says he warned Sajjan about allegations against Gen. Vance 3 years ago​
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-sajjan-walbourne-misconduct-1.5935397


So now the minister is an accessory to hiding OP honor violations. Any credibility left is now gone for the CAF to actually enforce and uphold OP honor in my opinion.


----------



## Kat Stevens

MilEME09 said:


> So now the minister is an accessory to hiding OP honor violations. Any credibility left is now gone for the CAF to actually enforce and uphold OP honor in my opinion.


In the time honoured and best kept tradition of the military, just STFU and do what we tell you, don't worry about what other people are doing.


----------



## Navy_Pete

brihard said:


> Aaaaand Gary Walbourne just threw Sajjan under the bus. Cabinet shuffle in 3... 2... 1...
> 
> Former ombudsman says he warned Sajjan about allegations against Gen. Vance 3 years ago​
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-sajjan-walbourne-misconduct-1.5935397


Wow, that's pretty damning.

I keep having to remind myself that this kind of horseshit is exactly why we need Op Honour (and some kind of completely independent reporting chain), as well as a mechanism to charge and CM absolutely everyone in uniform.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Navy_Pete said:


> Wow, that's pretty damning.
> 
> I keep having to remind myself that this kind of horseshit is exactly why we need Op Honour (and some kind of completely independent reporting chain), as well as a mechanism to charge and CM absolutely everyone in uniform.


Not to worry! Once there's a political officer in every ship, flight, regiment and battalion, they'll get a firm grip on all that sort of thing.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kat Stevens said:


> Not to worry! Once there's a political officer in every ship, flight, regiment and battalion, they'll get a firm grip on all that sort of thing.


Now that the door has opened to having a space force, we may as well go all in and roll out Commisars. Who is going to argue with someone with a bolt pistol and a chainsword?


----------



## MilEME09

Navy_Pete said:


> Now that the door has opened to having a space force, we may as well go all in and roll out Commisars. Who is going to argue with someone with a bolt pistol and a chainsword?


Does that make us space marines? Or imperial guard?


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Does that make us space marines? Or imperial guard?


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:


> Does that make us space marines? Or imperial guard?


Imperial guard I think; Space Marines were genetically modified giant superhumans and all male (something to do with descending from the Emperor's genes) who I don't think had any sex drive for the most part. (That probably opens up a whole thread of arguements, so I'm probably wrong/not 100% accurate there.)

Anyway, I'm going with the Guard. But power armor would be pretty cool.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Navy_Pete said:


> Imperial guard I think; Space Marines were genetically modified giant superhumans and all male (something to do with descending from the Emperor's genes) who I don't think had any sex drive for the most part. (That probably opens up a whole thread of arguements, so I'm probably wrong/not 100% accurate there.)
> 
> Anyway, I'm going with the Guard. But power armor would be pretty cool.


A selfie I took on my last overseas trip


----------



## Halifax Tar

reveng said:


> The architect of his own destruction.


----------



## MilEME09

Link removed as per site quidelines

A little more detail from the NP, liberals on committee try to blame Walbourne for not going to the police with the allegations, and Sajjan says he doesn't agree with the testimony.


----------



## Good2Golf

Obfuscation.  Alleged conduct wasn’t applicable to the Criminal Code of Canada, which is, as at least many of us know, quite separate from the National Defence Act.


----------



## dangerboy

Good2Golf said:


> Obfuscation.  Alleged conduct wasn’t applicable to the Criminal Code of Canada, which is, as at least many of us know, quite separate from the National Defence Act.


Unfortunately, the majority of the people outside of the military (and some within) do not know that, so it will look good in the media. It is despicable that they would resort to such tactics.


----------



## ModlrMike

dangerboy said:


> Unfortunately, the majority of the people outside of the military (and some within) do not know that, so it will look good in the media. It is despicable predictable that they would resort to such tactics.


FTFY


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dangerboy said:


> Unfortunately, the majority of the people outside of the military (and some within) do not know that, so it will look good in the media. It is despicable that they would resort to such tactics.


SOP for this government


----------



## MilEME09

Tories push to expand defence committee Vance probe after explosive watchdog testimony - National | Globalnews.ca
					

A source with knowledge of the request told Global News the Conservative members want the committee to invite Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan back.




					globalnews.ca
				




Minister is being called back to testify


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> Tories push to expand defence committee Vance probe after explosive watchdog testimony - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> A source with knowledge of the request told Global News the Conservative members want the committee to invite Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minister is being called back to testify


I think the article states that the four Conservatives are calling for the committee to call the Minister back. It will be interesting to see if the six Liberal members will shut that down and where the NDP member will stand.

🤔


----------



## YZT580

FJAG said:


> I think the article states that the four Conservatives are calling for the committee to call the Minister back. It will be interesting to see if the six Liberal members will shut that down and where the NDP member will stand.
> 
> 🤔


Is there any doubt?  Lib: "There is nothing more that we need to hear from the minister.  I am certain that the minister would never lie to this committee especially on an issue as dear to his heart as honour.  We would only be wasting his valuable time."  The NDP will side with the conservatives.  They like any opportunity that comes along that demonstrates that they aren't the liberal's lapdogs but which won't provoke an election.


----------



## MilEME09

A lot of big allegations against the minister, lying to the committee, covering up an Op honor violation, and cutting off funding to the ombudsman for bringing it all forward


----------



## Harris

Navy_Pete said:


> Now that the door has opened to having a space force, we may as well go all in and roll out Commisars. Who is going to argue with someone with a bolt pistol and a chainsword?


Except with procurement the way it is, it will take 10 years to purchase them and they can only be repaired in the factory.


----------



## Gunnar

Harris said:


> Except with procurement the way it is, it will take 10 years to purchase them and they can only be repaired in the factory.


Only be repaired in the manufactorium on MARS!


----------



## MilEME09

Trudeau says his office knew in 2018 a Vance allegation was passed to officials - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The Canadian military is facing an institutional crisis amid twin military police probes into Gen. Jonathan Vance and Adm. Art McDonald.




					globalnews.ca
				




Surprise


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> Trudeau says his office knew in 2018 a Vance allegation was passed to officials - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The Canadian military is facing an institutional crisis amid twin military police probes into Gen. Jonathan Vance and Adm. Art McDonald.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surprise


And yet they didn't think it important enough to tell the PM that there are allegations of misconduct against the CDS nor to call the CDS in for, at least, a fireside chat?

The PMO is either massively incompetent or someone is shading things a wee tad.

😠


----------



## Jarnhamar

FJAG said:


> The PMO is either massively incompetent or someone is shading things a wee tad.
> 
> 😠


Or they're really good at their job and set the stage for the PM to be protected when this eventually came out. Aka plausable deniability.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Jarnhamar said:


> Or they're really good at their job and set the stage for the PM to be protected when this eventually came out. Aka plausable deniability.


----------



## FJAG

Jarnhamar said:


> Or they're really good at their job and set the stage for the PM to be protected when this eventually came out. Aka plausable deniability.


Oh, I thought about the plausible deniability basis thing. And then I said to myself: is covering up the misconduct of a very senior defence official and not telling your boss or investigating it to give him "plausible deniability" down the road really doing a good job? Or does it merely highlight the fact that you are part of a corrupt cabal? 

I see now that without any evidence, JT is claiming that Harper knew of this when he appointed him.

My gorge is rising.

😠


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FJAG said:


> Oh, I thought about the plausible deniability basis thing. And then I said to myself: is covering up the misconduct of a very senior defence official and not telling your boss or investigating it to give him "plausible deniability" down the road really doing a good job? Or does it merely highlight the fact that you are part of a corrupt cabal?
> 
> I see now that without any evidence, JT is claiming that Harper knew of this when he appointed him.
> 
> My gorge is rising.
> 
> 😠


See! I knew somehow this would be Harper’s fault!

Did you know that the start of World War 1, the Great Depression and the Hindenberg disaster were also Harper’s fault?


----------



## MilEME09

Deflect blame, dodge responsibility, avoid accountability, same liberal play booked

Edited due to poor taste on my part


----------



## ballz

I'm not really sure this is the right thread / time in the CAF to be using an analogy that insults Corporal's for their lack of accountability........


----------



## OldSolduer

ballz said:


> I'm not really sure this is the right thread / time in the CAF to be using an analogy that insults Corporal's for their lack of accountability........


I quite agree.

The LPC got what they wanted - they tripped over each other to secure his nomination when the Trudeau name became available. Never mind that he had no experience in politics or government. They created this incompetent twirp and placed him in the highest elected office in the nation. It would serve them right if the LPC imploded and was sent straight to hell. But we know that won't happen.


----------



## Lumber

OldSolduer said:


> I quite agree.
> 
> The LPC got what they wanted - they tripped over each other to secure his nomination when the Trudeau name became available. Never mind that he had no experience in politics or government. They created this incompetent twirp and placed him in the highest elected office in the nation. It would serve them right if the LPC imploded and was sent straight to hell. But we know that won't happen.



Let's be accurate here: Trudeau was first elected in 2008, 5 years before assuming the leadership, so he had experience in politics.


----------



## Furniture

SeaKingTacco said:


> See! I knew somehow this would be Harper’s fault!
> 
> Did you know that the start of World War 1, the Great Depression and the Hindenberg disaster were also Harper’s fault?


You're letting Harper off a bit easy.. He also was responsible for the Siege of Troy, Crassus' defeat by the Parthians, and I'm pretty sure he's the guy that encouraged Genghis Khan to be so rapey...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The serpent that tempted Eve.


----------



## Weinie

Fishbone Jones said:


> The serpent that tempted Eve.


And he killed all the dinosaurs, including Barney.


----------



## brihard

Weinie said:


> And he killed all the dinosaurs, including Barney.


It needed to be done.


----------



## Haggis

OldSolduer said:


> I quite agree.
> 
> The LPC got what they wanted - they tripped over each other to secure his nomination when the Trudeau name became available. Never mind that he had no experience in politics or government. They created this incompetent twirp and placed him in the highest elected office in the nation. It would serve them right if the LPC imploded and was sent straight to hell. But we know that won't happen.


The Liberals have morphed from a political party into a personality cult, something like the Trump republicans, I believe.  However, I doubt Trudeau will face the same fate this summer as The Donald.


----------



## OldSolduer

Lumber said:


> Let's be accurate here: Trudeau was first elected in 2008, 5 years before assuming the leadership, so he had experience in politics.


Of course - thanks for the correction. He’s a slow learner though 😉


----------



## Navy_Pete

OldSolduer said:


> Of course - thanks for the correction. He’s a slow learner though 😉


Is he though? He's had a number of potential career killing things slide off, and has been found guilty of several ethical breaches with no actual impacts.

I'd argue that the electorate are more of slow learners about consequences for politicians if we expect anything to happen outside the voting cycle.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FJAG said:


> And yet they didn't think it important enough to tell the PM that there are allegations of misconduct against the CDS nor to call the CDS in for, at least, a fireside chat?


An episode of "The West Wing" brought this up quite well.  Is it something someone considers that the PM "needs" to know.  The "someone" (either the final receiver of the info or all the info-gatekeepers in between) and "need" can vary greatly, depending on who's telling and who's supposed to be listening.  Does EVERY subordinate tell EVERY boss EVERYTHING, and does EVERYTHING make it through to the boss?


----------



## Weinie

The Bread Guy said:


> An episode of "The West Wing" brought this up quite well.  Is it something someone considers that the PM "needs" to know.  The "someone" (either the final receiver of the info or all the info-gatekeepers in between) and "need" can vary greatly, depending on who's telling and who's supposed to be listening.  Does EVERY subordinate tell EVERY boss EVERYTHING, and does EVERYTHING make it through to the boss?


Yeah, and Independence Day said it even better.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...-38&sk=&cvid=325381662A10413DB5A744A2E9A9524A


----------



## The Bread Guy

Weinie said:


> Yeah, and Independence Day said it even better.
> 
> https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=independence+day+plausible+deniability&&view=detail&mid=325F40C0F0010779EC39325F40C0F0010779EC39&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=/videos/search?q=independence%20day%20plausible%20deniability&qs=n&form=QBVR&sp=-1&pq=independence%20day%20plausible%20deniability&sc=1-38&sk=&cvid=325381662A10413DB5A744A2E9A9524A


Yup - creates a wide range of hand-on-heart options when asked "who" "knew" "what" "when"?


----------



## OldSolduer

Navy_Pete said:


> Is he though? He's had a number of potential career killing things slide off, and has been found guilty of several ethical breaches with no actual impacts.
> 
> I'd argue that the electorate are more of slow learners about consequences for politicians if we expect anything to happen outside the voting cycle.


I’d say it’s not his street smarts but the handlers the LPC employs to keep his image as the fair haired son of PET who will lead us all to the promised land.
And those that voted him in are slow learners too


----------



## Good2Golf

The Bread Guy said:


> An episode of "The West Wing" brought this up quite well.  Is it something someone considers that the PM "needs" to know.  The "someone" (either the final receiver of the info or all the info-gatekeepers in between) and "need" can vary greatly, depending on who's telling and who's supposed to be listening.  Does EVERY subordinate tell EVERY boss EVERYTHING, and does EVERYTHING make it through to the boss?


Weinie captured it well.  The PMO staff knew exactly what they were doing sheltering the PM from....’the details’...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:


> Weinie captured it well.  The PMO staff knew exactly what they were doing sheltering the PM from....’the details’...


If you're a fan of "Yes, Minister", the "Whisky Priest" episode covers that quite well.


----------



## dapaterson

You... you... you use Bing?


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> You... you... you use Bing?


well, via his AOL connection, he does...


----------



## dapaterson

AOL dialup at 2400 baud, I assume?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> well, via his AOL connection, he does...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I don't  much care if he was told or not. He holds the high office. The buck stops there. IMO, every person being appointed to head a top position or ministry, should be personally handing the PM an undated resignation letter. The second part of that visit should be the PM asking some very pointed and personal questions. Even if he doesn't, he's the final approval for the appointment, he's responsible.


----------



## MilEME09

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't  much care if he was told or not. He holds the high office. The buck stops there. IMO, every person being appointed to head a top position or ministry, should be personally handing the PM an undated resignation letter. The second part of that visit should be the PM asking some very pointed and personal questions. Even if he doesn't, he's the final approval for the appointment, he's responsible.


Responsibility of leadership lacks in politics these days, has for a long time


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> Responsibility of leadership lacks in politics these days, has for a long time


Because its 2021......


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MilEME09 said:


> Responsibility of leadership lacks in politics these days, has for a long time


It appears the CAF is following the political example.


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:


> You... you... you use Bing?


And Google, and DuckDuckGo, and Yahoo, and ... 

Also, the audio on the episode was better than any I found on YT.


----------



## Haggis

Fishbone Jones said:


> It appears the CAF is following the political example.


The CAF is intimately tied to the public service in many ways (i.e. pay, benefits, travel policies etc.).  While I worked at NDHQ I often saw glaring examples of cultural bleedthorugh where CAF members acted simply as bureaucrats who didn't have to decide what to wear to work each day.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> The CAF is intimately tied to the public service in many ways (i.e. pay, benefits, travel policies etc.).  While I worked at NDHQ I often saw glaring examples of cultural bleedthorugh where CAF members acted simply as bureaucrats who didn't have to decide what to wear to work each day.



And (tortuously prepared) briefing notes being required to decide what to do next.... even at the unit level.  I assumed that Class A pay was for warfirghter training, not fighting inter-office battles.

The risk aversion is strong with these people


----------



## TCM621

daftandbarmy said:


> And (tortuously prepared) briefing notes being required to decide what to do next.... even at the unit level.  I assumed that Class A pay was for warfirghter training, not fighting inter-office battles.
> 
> The risk aversion is strong with these people


We have reached a point where I work that we can not do our principle task without breaking the rules or spending 3 times the required time to do the job combine with 3 days of pre-planning. We are becoming Americans trying to substitute "safety" rules in place of teaching people to be safe in a dangerous job. No amount of regulation can equal proper training and experience, something we are in short supply of right now.


----------

