# Soldier found guilty of rape wants to serve in Afghanistan



## ark (22 May 2007)

Sorry but I only have the article in French:



> Le 9 février dernier, Pierre Olivier Boulet a été reconnu coupable d'agression sexuelle sur une jeune femme de 18 ans.
> 
> Les événements sont survenus sur la côte de Beaupré en juin 2004.
> 
> ...



http://www.tqs.ca/infos/quebec/2007/05/Un-militaire-reconnu-coupable-d-agression-sexuelle-veut-servir-en-Afghanistan--5857.php

Short translation:

A man (CF member), who was found guilty of rape, is trying to get a verdict without getting a criminal record so he can serve in Afghanistan.

The Crown attorney is asking the judge if this man is the type of soldier CF wants to see serve in Afghanistan.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (22 May 2007)

Last time i checked rape was a serious felony crime, how does this person think he will get off with out a criminal record, the only place he will be or should be going to is a jail cell with the other degenerates. 

 The crown attorney is right, we don't need this kind in the military, let alone in Afghanistan. That's the reason we have prisons.


----------



## KevinB (22 May 2007)

Sexual Assault - 

Okay my french sucks
  The 18year old girl drank a shit load - and passed out -- he entered and 
 This is where I am fuzzy 
is the argument he did not have consent -- or she was too drunk to give consent.

I'm not clear enough on what happend/alledged to have happen to pass judgement.
* In no way am I okaying a rape -- I just want to be sure that what is described -- not a girl waking up with a hangover an accusing the guy beside her of rape...


----------



## GAP (22 May 2007)

I don't know about this guy, too little data....

But, I daresay, there have been many moments and situations where after a night of partying, at least some of us have been in the position of not being able to defend against the claim of rape/assault based simply on the inability to remember the night before, after a certain point.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 May 2007)

I just started my year long french course (currently BAA) so not an expert but what I read there is that he failed to get consent. She had gone to bed alone after drinking a lot and he came into the room and took advantage of her drunken state, He was found guilty and she would like to see him behind bars. He wants to serve a tour in KAF and the Crown is asking  the judge whether this is the kind of character we want representing us.

Like most here I'm not sure we have enough info. I've seen some guys railroaded big time when they were out partying and thought that all was well until the police showed up and cuffed them and took them in to be processed. 
Niner Domestic if she's reading this would be a good one to comment as this is her "part ship."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 May 2007)

It reads " he didn't take the nessesary means to ensure there was consent"


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> It reads " he didn't take the nessesary means to ensure there was consent"



Interesting way to say it. I'm sure the legal beagles can interpret that from legalize to english even further.


----------



## TN2IC (22 May 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Sexual Assault -
> 
> Okay my french sucks
> The 18year old girl drank a shit load - and passed out -- he entered and
> ...



You and I are thinking the same. My french is a bit better now since I just got off ex with the Vandoos. 

But yeah... I believe it is sexual assault, not rape written on the site. Is there anymore details of this news?

Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## geo (22 May 2007)

The gent was not in the military when this happened
The minute the cops came a calling, he went straight to his CoC & told his side of story
Apparently, the gent had a snootfull of booze - to go along with her's
Nuff to say that his version of the events didn't get a positive response from the courts.
Setencing to follow....


----------



## TN2IC (22 May 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> The gent was not in the military when this happened
> The minute the cops came a calling, he went straight to his CoC & told his side of story
> Apparently, the gent had a snootfull of booze - to go along with her's
> Nuff to say that his version of the events didn't get a positive response from the courts.
> Setencing to follow....



Sorry Geo,
               but can you clear the air here on your statement. Referring to, "the gent was not in the military when this happened." 
Was he Reg/PRes? Off duty I am guessing. I am sure the courts didn't response positive to him as well. 

Oh well, mess with fire, and you"re going to get burnt.


Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## deedster (22 May 2007)

I am very anxious to get our niner domestic's comments on this, she is amazing.
However, I've been biting my tongue ...upon reading some of the recruiting process posts, I notice (and this is solely based on what I read and maybe not factual) that some people are worried about being accepted in the CF because of bad credit or some such thing (and I COMPLETELY understand the "reliability" issue), but this guy's "error in judgement" as it were, in my estimation, is a way bigger concern.  I am in no way condemning him or condoning his or the young lady in question's behavior, whether there was "consent" or not. The court will give its ruling, but, I would like to think that the CF aspires to a much higher level of personna than this fellow.

My (still) civilian (dammit) 2¢ 
D2


----------



## geo (22 May 2007)

TN2IC
This happened prior to his enrollment.


----------



## FredDaHead (22 May 2007)

D Squared said:
			
		

> I am in no way condemning him or condoning his or the young lady in question's behavior, whether there was "consent" or not. The court will give its ruling, but, I would like to think that the CF aspires to a much higher level of personna than this fellow.



I believe some long-haired hippy carpenter said, a long time ago, something like "let he who hasn't sinned cast the first stone." I'm sure you've had a lapse in judgement at least once where that lapse could have resulted in injury or criminal charges; pretty much everyone has had a lapse of judgement. If we keep everyone who hasn't had an absolutely perfect history out of the forces, we're going to have a military composed of nuns and extremely bored people.

Do I excuse his actions? No. That doesn't mean I don't want him in the military--not that I want him in, either. What it does mean is that anyone can make mistakes, especially when alcohol is involved. Furthermore, we don't know any level of details in the incident. Did she tell him, drunkedly, to come meet her later, forgot about it, and when he stumbled, drunk, in bed with her, he thought he did have conscent? Maybe the guy was absolutely perfect and this is the only time he's ever had a lapse in judgement. What exactly, pray tell, does the "high level of persona" that we (who's we, anyway?) want in the CF constitute?


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2007)

This is getting rather convoluted with every post.

This happened three years ago, when she was 18.  How old was he at the time?

We don't see much in the way of facts in this article.  It is too brief and lacking in details for any of us to make any "judgement", so we should leave all our speculation out of our posts.  

I guess that more or less sums up this topic.   ;D


----------



## Yrys (22 May 2007)

ark said:
			
		

> Sorry but I only have the article in French



I'll try a translation of the 9 sentences...

Last February 9, Pierre Olivier Boulet was found guilty of sexual agression on a young woman of 18 years old.
The facts happen on the ''Beaupré hill'' in june 2004.
The victim who had absorb a large quantity of alcool had gone to bed alone in her room.
Boulet entered the room and take the occasion to sexually agress her. without him taking the nessesary means to ensure there was consent
Today aged 21 years old, she wihs  to see her agressor behind bars.
This morning (friday), the lawyer of Boulet who want his client to escape aving a criminal record, 
has  asked for him for an aboslution without any conditions.
It's because the soldier wants to go to Afghanistan in the next few months.

In his speach about the sentence, the Crown attorney is asking the judge if Pierre Olivier Boulet is the type of soldier CF wants to see serve in Afghanistan.

The judge has taken the cause in ''délibéré'' (he's thinking about the case).


It is effectively a short article.


----------



## deedster (22 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> Maybe the guy was absolutely perfect and this is the only time he's ever had a lapse in judgement. What exactly, pray tell, does the "high level of persona" that we (who's we, anyway?) want in the CF constitute?


Freddy, you know what? Good points.  And no, I could *never * cast the first stone...and what I meant by "high level of persona" is only my take  (the "we") on what I've been led to believe the CF is looking for.  Gee, maybe I should learn to relax a little...I may still have a chance.


----------



## geo (22 May 2007)

The only additional thing that I will say on this subject is that, it is not all cut and dried / black & white.
While there is probably some blame to share, he is the one who did the deed & ends up holding the cheque

While he is not a bad soldier, the career manglers will decide on his fate once the court decides on his fate.


----------



## M Feetham (22 May 2007)

We have a recruit here in St Jean that has been charged with multiple B&E's. This happened prior to his enrollement and he wasn't charged until after he had started his BMQ. He was aware however that he had broken the law before his enrollment. As far as I know he did not come forward with this information before he arrived for training. This is considered an irregular enrolment and technically he can be released from the CF on these grounds. What ever this other young man did, it is pretty sure that if he was found guilty, he will receive a severe sentence and will most likely wind up with a criminal record. Whether he did this deliberatly or just had too much to drink is really irrelevant. One of the most important thing that most kids today are unable to realize is that for every decision we make in life there are consquences. He now has to deal with the consequences that arise from his decision.It's all well and good to think that you are hooking up with some young hottie and are going to have a good time, but if you are drinking hard and jump into bed with her and she is passed out or sleeping then common sense dictates that you exit stage left and leave her the f___k alone. As a father of two girls, I personnaly would like to see this guy in prison and released from the CF. He is definitly not what we want representing us in KAF. 
Thanks for listening. 
Feet.


----------



## TN2IC (22 May 2007)

But a 3 year wait period before action was taken? Would that sound right? Was there any police action right after the assault? If so, what?

I am not defending this guy, but it does make you think. 

 :-\


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 May 2007)

What used to be the criteria that a judge gave the guilty the option of jail or serving a stint in the military?


----------



## Dissident (23 May 2007)

The way it was explained to me here from some collegues is: If someone is unaware of their environment and are not concious of it, they do not posses the ability to give consent. Mabe things are different in Quebec, they have a few quirks that I am most definitly not an expert on.

As always, it is hard to come to a conclusion in these situation, since we do not have all the details. We just have to trust the courts to do the right thing. If he is guilty, hes probaly better out of the military than in, for his own good.


----------



## FredDaHead (23 May 2007)

Dissident said:
			
		

> The way it was explained to me here from some collegues is: If someone is unaware of their environment and are not concious of it, they do not posses the ability to give consent. Mabe things are different in Quebec, they have a few quirks that I am most definitly not an expert on.
> 
> As always, it is hard to come to a conclusion in these situation, since we do not have all the details. We just have to trust the courts to do the right thing. If he is guilty, hes probaly better out of the military than in, for his own good.



From what I understand, if someone is impaired (there might be a specific definition, but I don't know what it is) they cannot give consent. That means that even if someone says they do want to have sex (in a case like this one), they technically did not give consent. It's basically a way for women to cry "rape" after giving every indication they did want to have sex with the man they accuse; it has never, to my knowledge, been used to accuse a female of rape.



			
				TN2IC said:
			
		

> But a 3 year wait period before action was taken? Would that sound right? Was there any police action right after the assault? If so, what?
> 
> I am not defending this guy, but it does make you think.



I don't think it's that atypical for sex crimes in general; those against children often only surface many years after. I guess if the woman is so hell-bent on him going to jail, she might have wanted to press charges earlier, though.


----------



## Armymedic (23 May 2007)

My error, I misread the translation.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> From what I understand, if someone is impaired (there might be a specific definition, but I don't know what it is) they cannot give consent. That means that even if someone says they do want to have sex (in a case like this one), they technically did not give consent. It's basically a way for women to cry "rape" after giving every indication they did want to have sex with the man they accuse; it has never, to my knowledge, been used to accuse a female of rape.
> 
> I don't think it's that atypical for sex crimes in general; those against children often only surface many years after. I guess if the woman is so hell-bent on him going to jail, she might have wanted to press charges earlier, though.



Quite true. Under law I am not allowed to perform a wedding ceremony for people who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs as one of the pre-requisites for a legal ceremony is consent and someone under the influence cannot give valid consent.
That's why it's always a good idea not to have your Stag the night before the ceremony.


----------



## KevinB (23 May 2007)

Kevin's next queston -- WTF did we enroll him for - of this happened prior to him being sworn in?

My own personal opinion is that 1) a criminal record will not specifically exempt you from Afghan -- 2) BUT he rotting in a cell will.

  Without enough detail given on the facts its impossible to figure out the angles.


----------



## Journeyman (23 May 2007)

Dissident said:
			
		

> *We just have to trust the courts to do the right thing.*


 :rofl: Oh......you were serious.  :-[




			
				Freddy G said:
			
		

> *It's basically a way for women to cry "rape" after giving every indication they did want to have sex with the man they accuse *


Yes, that's the rationale behind the law. :  Nice outlook.


----------



## mover1 (23 May 2007)

Anyone remember last month in Halifax. There was a guy who picked up a girl at the Palace or some such place. They talked a bit he walked her home and she gave him a BJ behind a dumpster. 
She felt some pangs of guilt ran back to her hotel crying and charged the guy with rape.  

Story is she had a boyfriend and felt guilty for stooping so low as to give a random guy some noggin behind a dirty old dumpster. So natural conclusion to protect her virtue was to pull the assault card.

I think the dude got off in more ways than one. ;D

Not that it has any relevance, I just thought I would waste your time with this story.


----------



## Dissident (23 May 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :rofl: Oh......you were serious.  :-[



I was. re-reading it does make it sound pretty naive. I was trying to be more fatalist.


----------



## GUNS (23 May 2007)

As to the results of this persons punishments,  for his  crime, we will have to wait. It will make for good read if this person's conviction for rape is with a conditional discharge and ends up in A'stan.

It would leave some Reg. Force and Res. Forces members scratching their heads as they cool the butts for 12 months of C&P for smoking a joint. ???


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2007)

GUNS said:
			
		

> As to the results of this persons punishments, if any,  for his alleged crime, we will have to wait. It will make for good read if this person is convicted of the alledged rape and then given a conditional discharge and ends up in A'stan.
> 
> It would leave some Reg. Force and Res. Forces members scratching their heads as they cool the butts for 12 months of C&P for smoking a joint. ???



Although I'd agree with you sentiments on this one; in all fairness those boys on C&P for smoking a joint obviously did so after they joined and signed the line saying they wouldn't.

Sadly, this guy seems to have 'grown up' after the assault for which he was convicted (very belatedly I might add) as it seems to be his only brush with the _Justice_ System.  

How many serving members do we have who have been granted pardons etc prior to their enrolment? Sadly, if the chick in this scenario had pressed for charges 'sexual assault' (which is _not_ rape) way back when this incident occur ed and prior to his enrolment in the CF...it wouldn't even be newsworthy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2007)

It will be (*should* be) very hard for a convicted felon to get/keep a security clearance ... I hope.  Without knowing what jobs require what clearances I'm guessing that may make it hard to retain and employ him.


----------



## Teflon (23 May 2007)

> She had gone to bed alone after drinking a lot



My french sucks as well but the above statement if correct leads me to believe that no indications of consent where given but the article doesn't give much detail. 

In the end it's sound like buddy is a dirt bag to me and I don't think I want that kind of person beside me over there - then again without more detail and a better translation who am I to judge?


----------



## niner domestic (23 May 2007)

I can't make a direct comment on the actual proposed sentencing as that has to be decided by the parties involved.  However, there are some myths being perpetuated in the thread and those need to be addressed.

In Canada, we do not have felonies (that is an American term to draw the difference between a misdemeanor and serious crime).  We have offences that are either indictable or summarily decided.  We do not have felons, we have at the time of investigation, a suspect, at the time of the information for the charge being laid, an accused and during a trial, a defendant/accused and upon conviction, an offender.  Soldier boy is now an offender, he has been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction and is awaiting sentencing.  

In Canada, we do not have an offence of rape.  We have three types of offences that involve sexual assault.  We do not have the information as to which one of the three levels soldier boy was convicted of committing.  

In Canada, sexual assault offences of the first level is known as a hybrid offence and can be tried either as a summary offence or an indictable offence.  We do not know which way the Crown proceeded with the offence.  Because it was tried by judge alone, I am assuming it was summarily tried as a conviction of sexual assault can impose a sentence of greater than 5 years and that expressly sets out a trial by judge and jury.  Again, we do not know what section of the Criminal Code he was convicted under.  Depending on which way the offence was tried, will depend on the latitude of sentencing the Court has.  There will be a pre-sentence report done by all parties and in this case, the CF will be involved as to their opinion.  *Try to recall that NY judge that attempted to sentence pedophile to serving his time in Canada, it was appealed and overturned.   

In Canada, we do not require sexual assault victims to come forward immediately after an alleged assault.  We have no statute of limitation for crimes against the person although a court of competent jurisdiction will determine if the accused in an historic offence is capable and fit to stand trial (seen in the staying of charges in historic sexual assault incidents of young children who have now reached adulthood and the perpetrator is aged).  The SCC of was clear in civil suits that the clock really only starts ticking when the victim/plaintiff is fully apprised of the damage that the incidents have caused them.   The complainant may very well have provided the information to the police but the police/Crown felt that laying the information for a charge was not going to result in a likelihood of a conviction -  as long as the offender has not been charged under the same particulars for the same offence, the police/crown/complainant can sit on it for as long as they feel necessary.  (I've had to do that with child witnesses who have been sexually assaulted, proceeding to charging the suspect and the ensuing trial would not have yielded the likelihood of a conviction as the child was either too young, was shaky as a witness or it was not in the best interests of the child) Again , we don't know the details of this charge.  

In Canada, consent or lack thereof, is a necessary element in a sexual assault.  If this particular case got as far as a trial and a conviction, the issue of consent would have been long since dealt with to a standard beyond reasonable doubt.  If the offender argued that he honestly and reasonably believed there was consent, and he was still found guilty, then he was not able to establish that ground beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, if soldier boy feels he was unjustly convicted because of an error in law, or fact, he can use the same process any other Canadian who has been found guilty of an offence has, and file for an appeal.   The laws on what constitutes consent are pretty much settled here in Canada.  (Pappajohn, Seaboyer, Darrach, Ewanchuk, O'Connor, Mills to name a few)

In Canada, the offender's record of behavior since the time of the offence will only go to mitigate the extent of the severity of the sentence.  I doubt there is a Crown out there that hasn't seen the virtues extoiled of an offender at the pre-sentencing report.  In this case, it appears the defence is vying for a conditional discharge or even an absolute discharge and is using A'stan as the time period for which the sentence will run to in length.  Again, since we don't know which way the charge was preferred, it's difficult to say what the rationale is.


----------



## Jesse Christie (23 May 2007)

the soldier does not have to prove anything, he does not have to prove that he was given consent, the woman has to prove without any reason of a doubt, that she did not give consent to the man. And if she did give consent, it was not valid if she was intoxicated. Therefore it's he said, she said... and we all know that ends up.


----------



## scoutfinch (23 May 2007)

Jesse Christie said:
			
		

> Therefore it's he said, she said... and we all know that ends up.



Why don't you enlighten us on how these things 'end up'.  

I am sure you are the font of all knowledge... :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 May 2007)

Jesse Christie said:
			
		

> Therefore it's he said, she said... and we all know that ends up.



Yea, he walks.........................so is this experience or lack of knowledge speaking?


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2007)

Jesse Christie said:
			
		

> the soldier does not have to prove anything, he does not have to prove that he was given consent, the woman has to prove without any reason of a doubt, that she did not give consent to the man. And if she did give consent, it was not valid if she was intoxicated. Therefore it's he said, she said... and we all know that ends up.



Uhmm, did you miss the part where it said he was "convicted?" That conviction implies he did not have consent, and _that_ is where it is now...and career-wise, it isn't over for him yet.


----------



## niner domestic (23 May 2007)

Jesse, I can't quite allow you to continue to believe that your statement is entirely correct.  Yes, in Canada under the Charter, an accused does not have to make their case at trial - it is entirely up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed (or in some offences - omitted) an offence to which is set out on the particulars.  The accused for all intent purposes can sit quietly in the court room and nary utter a word or instruct their lawyer to raise a defence. We are, by virtue of the Charter, guaranteed the right to be tried and guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt by the state.  However, if a defence is raised such as  the defence of consent in a sexual assault then the onus shifts to the accused to prove that consent was in fact, gained.  Same goes if any accused raises issues or evidence that goes to their credibility, character or identity.  Once raised, then the proverbial gloves come off and the prosecution will do what they can to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not/could/not or had not done what they are claiming to have done.  Shifts in the burden of proof occur all the time in law and it's been challenged to death in the courts.  Some have been held not to be constitutional while others were deemed demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  The consent defence has been upheld to be constitutional in the shift in the onus.  Now here's where it gets sticky for a defence counsel, should they introduce the defence of consent, then they are as much admitting that a sexual act has occurred.  If the said defence is not accepted by the court, then the accused will be found guilty as they have admitted committing the act in which they now find themselves before the court with.  So a simple case of he said/she said hardly ever plays out in the courts as you suggest.  Again, in Canada under the decision of R v. Stinchcomb, the Crown is required to disclose to the accused all evidence that will be brought before the court in the matter.  The defence will plan their trial strategy from those disclosures.    

As for the complainant, same rules apply, if the Crown raises issues or evidence of a prior sexual behaviour/conduct/history, then the defence has every right to challenge everything in cross examination.  R. v. O'connor was the SCC decision that set out that the defence can subpoena medical records of the complainant as well as records from any sexual assault centre/agency.  They were clear however that it is not a fishing trip for the defence and they must know that these records exist and not hope that something turns up.  

As a convicted offender of a sexual assault, soldier boy will now be on the sexual offender registry and if the current legislation goes through, he will be required to file his DNA sample.  He will of course, be eligible for a pardon in either 3 or 5 years (depending on whether it was a summary or indictable conviction).


----------



## Jesse Christie (23 May 2007)

i'm not defending what happened at all in fact, I hope that if this guy did take advantage of a girl that he pays the price, the point I was making is, even if he can prove that he was given consent, it isn't valid consent she was not legally able to give consent given the state she was in. So no I'm not saying he walks, I'm saying it doesn't matter what he says, cause it's he said she said, and I'm not insisting he walks, or that everytime a girl cries rape the man is innocent, just it's he said she said, and as for the comment about a past experience, yes a very close friend of mine was date-raped by someone she trusted, and I was the person who walked in on it happening and had to use force to stop it....


----------



## GAP (23 May 2007)

> he will be required to file his DNA sample.  He will of course, be eligible for a pardon in either 3 or 5 years (depending on whether it was a summary or indictable conviction).



If this is the case, if he is granted a pardon, does his DNA remain in the registry past that point?


----------



## niner domestic (23 May 2007)

Gap:

Under the proposed legislation (Bill C-18) one of the sections to amend is the way in which the Attorney General can request a sample to be destroyed and removed from the bank.  This would amend the current DNA Identification Act by eliminating the complex and expensive manner in which the AG has to proceed to have a sample removed.  Along with the pardon (once granted), would come the request from the AG to remove the sample.  So to answer your question, yes it would be removed (read not necessarily removed but sealed and only reopened if an additional criminal offence is registered as a conviction) once a pardon was granted and (under the current legislation - the courts granting the AG's request).  The DNA Identification Act is applicable to offenders under designated offences of the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act and the Code of Service Discipline.


----------



## FredDaHead (23 May 2007)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Gap:
> 
> Under the proposed legislation (Bill C-18) one of the sections to amend is the way in which the Attorney General can request a sample to be destroyed and removed from the bank.  This would amend the current DNA Identification Act by eliminating the complex and expensive manner in which the AG has to proceed to have a sample removed.  Along with the pardon (once granted), would come the request from the AG to remove the sample.  So to answer your question, yes it would be removed (read not necessarily removed but sealed and only reopened if an additional criminal offence is registered as a conviction) once a pardon was granted and (under the current legislation - the courts granting the AG's request).  The DNA Identification Act is applicable to offenders under designated offences of the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act and the Code of Service Discipline.



Just to make sure I understand that right... The DNA could be used to prove someone who was previously convicted commited another crime, but if they're pardonned, it couldn't be used until after they're convicted again? If all that legislation is passed, anyway.


----------



## civmick (23 May 2007)

No way should this guy be sent to Afstan - why give the peaceniks more ammo - "Canada pillages, and now sends rapists" etc.etc.etc.


----------



## FredDaHead (24 May 2007)

civmick said:
			
		

> No way should this guy be sent to Afstan - why give the peaceniks more ammo - "Canada pillages, and now sends rapists" etc.etc.etc.



We could send the RCNR (Royal Canadian Nuns Regiment) and the peaceniks would still whine and bitch about it. Heck, if we withdrew immediately the NDP would find a reason to bitch about that, too.


----------



## GUNS (24 May 2007)

Canadians opinion of the Canadian Armed Forces will differ from day to day.

One must never forget - that when the Canadian Armed Forces, do right.
                                   no one remembers.
                                   and when the Canadian Armed Forces do wrong.
                                   no one forgets.

Its part and package of wearing the uniform.


----------



## geo (24 May 2007)

While I am well acquainted with the file, I am somewhat restricted about how much detail to fill in.

I shall limit myself to saying that this fella is not entirely the monster that people have painted him out ot be.

WRT the young lady .........


----------

