# Keep Politics Away From Forces



## leroi (9 Dec 2009)

Mr. Campbell, hope you don't mind me posting this letter--it's a great letter and reminder so I thought posting it here would be for the 'greater good' (and perusal of the membership):

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2314424

Keep Politics Away From Forces
National Post: December 8, 2009
Re: Our Armed Forces Deserve Better, Marc Garneau, Dec. 5.

Like Liberal MP and former naval officer Marc Garneau, I come from a military family: my grandfathers both served; my father was killed in action in early 1943; I served over 35 years in the army, retiring as a senior officer; my son, like his grandfather, is a naval officer. My credentials, therefore, are at least as good as Mr. Garneau's.

I agree, mostly, with Mr. Garneau that our men and women in the Forces want and deserve our highest respect for their sacrifices. They're not only brave; they're intelligent. They know the difference between being honoured and being held out for partisan purposes. But most of all, they do not want to be made scapegoats for unsound social and economic policy decisions made by the Liberals in the Trudeau and Chretien eras.

Leaders of all stripes have never been shy about using any national institution as a partisan political backdrop. Our soldiers demonstrate their innate good taste and good sense and refuse to participate in the political theatre. Yes, our armed forces deserve better-- better than Mr. Garneau's whining -- from all political parties.

E.R. Campbell, Ottawa.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2009)

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=231442





> Sorry, this article is no longer available.




Wonder what happened?


----------



## leroi (9 Dec 2009)

That's weird. I just edited my post and re-posted the URL and it seems to work now.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Dec 2009)

Original post was missing the last 4......


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2009)

Politics cannot be separated from the forces, nor the Forces from politics:



> "Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln"



One of the negative things that comes with the job.


----------



## PanaEng (9 Dec 2009)

As I said on another  thread (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/90818.0) any publicity is better than none at all. 
I think part of our problem in the 80's and 90's was that the Canadian public had lost collective knowledge of our existence let alone our usefulness - we started languishing in our own, self imposed, obscurity (self imposed bc we did not do anything about it).  As other priorities came to the fore it was easy for the politicians to take from Defence to fund something else.
We have to stay in the public eye and mind - hopefully with positive images. If both parties do it, even better.
Look south and you can notice that the common themes or symbols in any political campaign are the flag, religion and the military - ignoring any of those is political suicide. 

just my $0.02 CAD

cheers,
Frank


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Politics cannot be separated from the forces, nor the Forces from politics:
> 
> One of the negative things that comes with the job.



I think what we want to avoid is having the CF as a whole being seen as taking political sides, looking like it's only supporting one party or another.

Forgot to mention - good letter E.R.!

_- edited to add congrats -_


----------



## leroi (9 Dec 2009)

Hope I didn't mislead either with the use of the word "reminder" as I was referring, in a general way, that politicians sometimes need to be reminded not to toss around the CF like a football, er, so to speak ....


----------



## Im Carl G carry me (10 Dec 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I think what we want to avoid is having the CF as a whole being seen as taking political sides, looking like it's only supporting one party or another.


While I agree with this, it irks me that I am not, as a serving cf member, allowed to be part of a political party or contribute money to one. I could see it being a problem if I were a senior officer, able through influence threats or armed revolution to influence policy...but as a mere private, I find the idea that I cannot actively participate in the democracy whose defence I have made my personal responsibility to be frustrating.


----------



## Nauticus (10 Dec 2009)

Im Carl G said:
			
		

> While I agree with this, it irks me that I am not, as a serving cf member, allowed to be part of a political party or contribute money to one. I could see it being a problem if I were a senior officer, able through influence threats or armed revolution to influence policy...but as a mere private, I find the idea that I cannot actively participate in the democracy whose defence I have made my personal responsibility to be frustrating.



It's equity. Why can't a senior member be part of a political party when a private can?

The Forces is supposed to be impartial. When members of the Forces are aligned with political parties, they're no longer impartial.


----------



## armyvern (10 Dec 2009)

Im Carl G said:
			
		

> While I agree with this, it irks me that I am not, as a serving cf member, allowed to be part of a political party or contribute money to one. I could see it being a problem if I were a senior officer, able through influence threats or armed revolution to influence policy...but as a mere private, I find the idea that I cannot actively participate in the democracy whose defence I have made my personal responsibility to be frustrating.



You are afforded every opportunity to participate in democracy ... with your vote on election day.

We exist to ensure that every Canadian maintains that right to exercise their democracy. 

Difference is, no matter which political party we may/may not support, we're also required to ensure that democratic right to vote remains _whichever_ political party is in power.  It's optics ... we've sworn to support and obey the Queen and her Canadian Government - whether it's the government that you or I voted for (or would/would not "publicly" support) is irrelevant. 

Last time I checked, belonging to a political party wasn't a "right", just a "nice". If it were a "right" the parties wouldn't be able to boot out their own members whenever agendas dictate.


----------



## Loachman (10 Dec 2009)

From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 

(a) freedom of conscience and religion; 
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
_*(d) freedom of association.*_


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2009)

Quoting from Canada's charter is a mugs game; there are a great many weasel words and phrases which essentially mean "Its OK only as long as WE say it is".

However, even in the United States, the military is still relatively apolitical (yes, people speak out of turn from time to time, just like here) and they have a similar solution: swear to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic...

Soldiers there (like here and in most Commonwealth nations that I know of) swear to defend their State by swearing aliegence to the symbols of the State (HRH the Queen in the Commonwealth, the Constitution of the United States in America). This demonstrates the apolitical nature of military service, you may not like having the CPC as the Canadian governing party, but it is irrelevant since you serve HRH Elizabeth II.

Since we are the armed power of the State, and in Westphalian terms the only true and legitimate arm of the State (without a military (or "the Kings Men" for Kirkhill), there is nothing to stop others from moving into your territory, levying taxes, expropriating your property etc.) then we _must_ be apolitical
otherwise we will simply become barbarian warlords.


----------



## armyvern (11 Dec 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
> 
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> 
> ...



Perfect!! Freedom of association ...

Not "right"of association ...


----------



## ballz (11 Dec 2009)

Maybe I misunderstood this but I thought CF members _were_ allowed to be members of parties and donate money to parties and stuff, they just weren't allowed to flaunt that they were members of said party and of the Canadian Forces, aka you're not supposed to start waving around your membership card while in uniform.

Also, this goes along with lines of protesting. You are allowed to participate in organized protests as long as you don't identify yourself as a CF member, since you are there representing yourself, not the CF.

Please feel free to rein me in one if I'm wrong. Kind of important since I was literally about to send in a membership application...


----------



## - m i l l e y - (11 Dec 2009)

From what I knew you are correct.  CF members can be members of political parties; just no putting up signs on your front lawn or going around in uniform trying to "convert" people.

As far as protesting, you cannot protest against the forces or government and so on, but you can protest against having you road paved or not and so on.

They teach that kind of stuff on basic.  It's been awhile so i don't remember the actual's about it, but those are the basics


----------



## gcclarke (11 Dec 2009)

From QR&Os Chapter 19 - Conduct and Discipline:


> 19.44 – POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CANDIDATURE FOR OFFICE
> (1) For the purposes of this article:
> 
> "political advertising" means advertising, the purpose of which is to gain support for the election of a candidate for federal, provincial or municipal office or to gain support for, or to encourage some action in support of, the maintenance or change of a policy that is the responsibility of government at the federal, provincial or municipal level; (publicité à caractère politique)
> ...



Emphasis mine. From that reading, I see nothing that prevents someone from joining a political party, and voting to nominate members of that party to represent their riding in an upcoming election. The "active" part of that is key. Yes, you certainly can't, for example, become someone's campaign manager, or appear in a political ad, or canvass on behalf of someone else.


----------



## pbi (6 Jan 2010)

I agree with gc clarke's interpretation. Reservists, when not subject to the Code of Service Discipline, probably have no restrictions on their political activities at all: they are to all intents and purposes civilians.

I have always understood that although in the RegF we can't hold elected office or a party organizational position, we are free to join whatever party we want, and contribute funds in any legal manner we want. As for election posters: I have had these on my private property with no issues. Since most people in the RegF don't live in PMQs where signs may be restricted, it probably isn't a big issue.

Where I do draw the line is at members (especially senior officers) saying or doing anything in public that appears to suggest they support one party over another. That is wrong and probably dangerous. It can also be heartbreaking (as we may have learned over the years...): if you crawl into bed with a political party, don't cry if you wake up in the morning and they've left you for political opportunism.

While I agree that publicly the US military is honourably apolitical, my very strong impression is that the officer corps is overwhelmingly Republican, just as many Cdn soldiers tend to identify with the Tories.

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2010)

Politics follows us, though:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/11/adrian-macnair-smearing-the-troops-it-s-what-the-liberals-do.aspx



> *Adrian MacNair: Smearing The Troops. It’s What The Liberals Do*
> Posted: January 11, 2010, 4:00 PM by NP Editor
> Full Comment, Adrian MacNair
> 
> ...


----------



## ProudNewfoundlander (28 Aug 2011)

Despite the formal apolitical approach the forces takes its no secret that the good majority are conservative ideologically and partisan wise. Same goes for other western countries


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2011)

ProudNewfoundlander said:
			
		

> Despite the formal apolitical approach the forces takes its no secret that the good majority are conservative ideologically and partisan wise. Same goes for other western countries




Yes, if you read Samuel Huntington's _The Soldier and the Sate_, you will see that the professional military is _conservative_ but not, necessarily, *C*_onservative_ - and Sam Huntington was careful to use *c*onservative in its correct, old fashioned sense, not as it is misused in 2011. Conservatives, like the military, value institutions and rules and are suspicious of individualism - most military men are not attracted to Ayn Rand, they prefer Edmund Burke.

That many Canadian military men are suspicious of the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP is, I suggest, not ideological, but, rather it is based on experience (e.g. Trudeau, etc) and public statements (e.g. Libby Davies).


----------



## ProudNewfoundlander (28 Aug 2011)

I believe that that in part the military has a conservative bent due to the instillation of tradtion and order into its structure and ethos, but one must also consider that the military derives its personnel primarily from rural areas, which have a conservative bent. And finally, in what you made reference to, conservative parties being the only parties in the last generation to properly equip the military and to take it seriously


----------



## Infanteer (28 Aug 2011)

ProudNewfoundlander said:
			
		

> but one must also consider that the military derives its personnel primarily from rural areas



Is this true?  What are you basing this assessment on?


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Aug 2011)

ProudNewfoundlander said:
			
		

> I believe that that in part the military has a conservative bent due to the instillation of tradtion and order into its structure and ethos, but one must also consider that the military derives its personnel primarily from rural areas, which have a conservative bent. And finally, in what you made reference to, conservative parties being the only parties in the last generation to properly equip the military and to take it seriously



I was born in Toronto and I like to think I have conservative values. :facepalm:


----------



## ProudNewfoundlander (28 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is this true?  What are you basing this assessment on?



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/90296.0.html


----------



## Infanteer (29 Aug 2011)

ProudNewfoundlander said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/90296.0.html



Unless I missed it, that thread says that "rural" Canada had a disproportianate share of casualties.  Nowhere does this state that more serving members of the CF are from rural as opposed to urban areas.

One would need some stats on the entire CF population to argue that its members mostly hail from rural Canada.


----------



## mariomike (29 Aug 2011)

"Conclusion": 
( Second paragraph. )
"Based upon the recruit patterns provided, it is evident that the majority of CF members now come from small urban centres or rural areas. Since the majority of the Canadian population lives in large cities, it is clear that there is little in the manner of proportional representation based upon geographic distribution.":
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo8/no3/jung-eng.asp 

Edit to add highlighted.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Unless I missed it, that thread says that "rural" Canada had a disproportianate share of casualties.  Nowhere does this state that more serving members of the CF are from rural as opposed to urban areas.
> 
> One would need some stats on the entire CF population to argue that its members mostly hail from rural Canada.




Further: we have debated this urban/rural 'split' a few times and there are serious problems with various definitions, including with those used by the Government of Canada. It is a fruitless argument.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Aug 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Standard Mariomike Cut-and-Paste



You could have looked a little harder and given the actual data:



> Based upon the data available, the recruitment pool for the CF traditionally has been fit young men between the ages of 17 and 24, coming from rural areas or from urban areas with a population of less than 100,000. Recruits generally have been white males with previous familial CF ties, possessing a high school education or less.



The source for this statement is Tracey Wait, _Canadian Demographic and Social Values at a Glance: Impact on Strategic HR Planning _ (Ottawa, Canada: Department of National Defence, 2002).  My brief google couldn't find it, but I don't doubt the authors veracity; I would be interested in seeing figures which would be from one of three sources:

1.  Recruit Center numbers (could be inaccurate as not everybody taken in by a RC becomes a member of the CF;

2.  Survey of personnel databases (for example, all MPRRs have a birthplace - but a birthplace isn't necessary where someone is "from"); or

3.  Self-identification by members as to where they are "from".

As Edward points out, the definition of "urban" and "rural" is tough, but if the data puts a cut-off line of cities under or over 100,000 people, you can get a fairly decent picture.


----------



## 2Charlie (1 Sep 2011)

Hmmm, the legislated extension of the will of the elected Canadian Government.  Canadian Armed Forces?


----------



## Muttenthaler (23 Sep 2011)

We all have our own individual, unalienable rights, as natural humans. To say that we are not allowed to flaunt our political status is as bad as the US military "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I, myself, do not have any political status, just adding my 2-cents......before taxes.

Politics, itself, does not have a place in an army. Adding beurocracy to a fighting force is completely redundant, which is why we have a government. Let them take political "action". The army is a tool for the people, to defend their rights and lives. If politics becomes a factor in the army's decision-making process, it will slow down the effifciency of the force, thereby heavily restricting its effectiveness.

Leave the political bull.... to the Defense Minister and his aide(s). Just shut up and do your job.


----------

